Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Doctors

Dr. Blackburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors there were (a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest available year.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. David Mellor): In 1979 there were 60,764 doctors in the hospital and community health and family practitioner services in England. By 1987, the number was 68,777.

Dr. Blackburn: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that in Dudley health authority during that period medical staff increased by 18 per cent. and more than 25 per cent. more patients were treated? Does not that give the lie to allegations made by trade unions and others about our commitment to the Health Service? Does my hon. and learned Friend also agree that, in view of the reduction in population, the figures are enhanced and outstanding?

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward the figures for his own health district. What they show is true of so many health districts up and down the country. Public expenditure on the Health Service has risen by two and a half times the increase in public expenditure as a whole. As a result, a number of areas which under previous Governments did not receive a substantial level of funding, now do so. The resources that my hon. Friend quoted give a clear message to the people of Dudley that the National Health Service is safe in our hands.

Mr. Fearn: Following publication of the recent White Paper, does the Minister consider that general practitioners in rural and inner city areas will now decrease as a result of those recommendations? What recommenda-tions has the Minister received from those particular practices?

Mr. Mellor: There is absolutely no reason for the number of GPs to decrease. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the number of GPs in England has increased by nearly 20 per cent. in the past 10 years. There are differences between regions in the United Kingdom which mean that some areas have twice as many people per GP as others. However, we are trying to provide incentives for doctors to go to under-doctored areas. It would not make sense to increase provision if such gross disparities still existed.

Dame Jill Knight: Without pressing my hon. and learned Friend for exact figures, has the increase in other medical experts—such as nurses, midwives, dentists and specialists—been at a fairly similar rate?

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend is quite right—the increase in dentists is almost precisely the same as the increase in GPs. The increase in nurses—of about 60,000—is also broadly similar. If, when referring to specialists, my hon. Friend was thinking of consultants, we are committed to achieve a balance and, over the next 10 years, to increase the number of consultants by 5,000. That will dramatically improve the position in most hospitals.

Hospital Trusts

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from Shropshire regarding the establishment of National Health Service hospital trusts.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I have received a few letters from people considering the possibility of forming NHS hospital trusts for cottage hospitals in Shropshire.

Mr. Gill: Will my right hon. and learned Friend use his best endeavours to enable my constituents to keep their local hospitals, either through an independent trust or through a National Health Service trust? Will he also instruct West Midlands regional health authority to facilitate that process?

Mr. Clarke: I know that, with the opening of the new district general hospital in Telford, Shropshire district health authority faces difficulty in deciding which services the hospital should replace, and what pattern of hospitals is needed for the future. The west midlands region and I want Shropshire to deliver the best possible system of health care within the reasonable resources available. Self-governing hospitals in the National Health Service will have to satisfy the Government that they have good, viable plans, and are likely to attract NHS patients from districts and other GPs. We are looking now for the first candidates to be ready to come into operation probably early in 1991.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, even after the opening of the new Telford hospital, there will be fewer hospital beds in Shropshire than 10 years ago? Will he have a word with the Chancellor and tell him that the £40 million bang handed out as a tax bonus for private medical care is completely irrelevant to the people of Shropshire? What is needed is a mere £2 million—that is the most likely estimate—to prevent any beds or hospitals from being closed.

Mr. Clarke: The number of hospital beds has fallen in just about every advanced medical system in the world over the past 10 years. I trust that the same has been true in every county of England over that period, as I hope that they are all moving towards day care and better use of facilities in line with modern medical practice.
I believe that Shropshire, with its new facilities, is now extremely well provided for. It is a pity to see much-loved cottage hospitals closing, but I approved the recent proposals only when I was satisfied that a better service to patients would result.

Mr. Biffen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider the judgments that he has been making recently in respect of hospital closures in Shropshire in the light of the latest developments, which cast a shadow over the likely continuation of the orthopaedic hospital at Gobowen?

Mr. Clarke: I will look into the matter, but at present I am familiar and up to date only with the closures that I approved shortly before Christmas. I continue to take a close interest in what is happening in Shropshire, but I am currently waiting for the results of the district health authority meeting which I believe is to take place on Thursday.
I know of my right hon. Friend's great concern for the future of hospital facilities in his constituency. The recent proposals were amended to meet his wishes and those of the inhabitants of Oswestry in part. I have no doubt that the future of the orthopaedic hospital is a matter in which he and I must continue to take a close interest.

Public Sector Laboratory Facilities (NHS)

Mr. Cash: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give an assessment of the results of the increasing use of private sector laboratory facilities within the National Health Service.

Mr. Mellor: Quality, speed and cost-effectiveness are the vital attributes of laboratory services, and access to private laboratory facilities widens the range of opportunities for health authorities to achieve these.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that facilities made available by private laboratories have greatly speeded up cervical investigations, and that such laboratories play a significant part in improving the opportunities available to patients?

Mr. Mellor: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. There are 385 public sector pathology laboratories in the country, but they have been supplemented substantially by 150 private laboratories and more than 200 private screening centres. There is no doubt that those facilities play a considerable part in health care, and we hope that under the new arrangements in the NHS there will be a much closer interaction between laboratory services in the private and public sectors.

Mr. Loyden: What assurances can the Minister give that tests such as cervical smears will be properly monitored in the hands of private laboratories, and what influence will the Department have on the outcome?

Mr. Mellor: Before the Department or any district health authority allocates work to a laboratory it must satisfy itself that the laboratory is efficient. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we are funding the national external quality assessment scheme, to which most public and many private laboratories subscribe and which is a way of ensuring appropriate quality.

"Working for Patients"

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what weight he attaches to the public comments and reaction he is receiving on the White Paper "Working for Patients" in the context of (a) professional groups working within the service and (b) others.

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has recently received on his White Paper on the Health Service, "Working for Patients".

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have received a number of representations on the White Paper. I have been very pleased by the positive and constructive nature of many of them.

Mr. Dykes: For the sake of those who wish to remain politically deaf—including Opposition Members—will my right hon. and learned Friend repeat that there is no question of privatisation in the proposals, and no question of any disadvantageous effect on the chronically sick or the elderly?

Mr. Clarke: I certainly confirm that. I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on having given currency to both those myths before the White Paper appeared as there is nothing in it to support either of them. I assure my hon. Friend and everyone else that we have set our back firmly against any prospect of privatising the Health Service, and that our proposals offer no disadvantages to the elderly and chronically sick.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the White Paper has been subject to a wicked campaign of misinformation, especially as regards the elderly? Will he also confirm that the basic principles of the Health Service remain unaffected, and that the objective of the White Paper is for more patients to be treated by even more doctors?

Mr. Clarke: A wholly predictable string of committees and bodies that I know well have reacted to this as they have to every other reform. People have ignored the fact that the National Association of Health Authorities and the Royal College of Surgeons have reacted favourably to the reforms. The purpose of the reforms is that the interests of patients should be uppermost in mind. We believe that such a change, in addition to all the extra money that we are putting into the Health Service, will produce an improved service to patients which will reflect more closely their choice and preference in the future.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister recognise that while some interest groups may express their own responses, there is unease in many parts of the profession and among patients that the end that the Minister has in mind may not be achieved by his methods?

Mr. Clarke: To take up the hon. Gentleman's last point, the joint consultants council yesterday was the latest medical group to say that it entirely shared the Government's aims of strengthening the service. There are plenty of questions about the means that we propose, but none of our critics has put forward proposals of any substance for reform or improvement. When we continue the prolonged process of discussion with consultants and GPs in practices and hospitals throughout the country and implement the proposals with care, we will demonstrate to the profession and to others that we are strengthening the service through the process of reform on which we have embarked.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State accept that extremely caring GPs in Stockport and in Denton in my constituency had not one good word for the


Government's proposals when they met me? Will he answer a specific question from them? If they are to have control of their own budgets as a group practice, will they be able to contract with a variety of hospitals or with just one hospital? How does that square with giving patients choice? Will the patients have free choice, or will it be the doctors who have the choice so as to control their budgets?

Mr. Clarke: If GPs choose to have their own practice budgets, they will be able to place their contracts with as many hospitals as they wish. They will be able to control a large sum of NHS resources to put together a mix of potential care and offer individual patients a choice when that care is needed. That is one of the attractions of practice budgets for many GPs. I know of many GPs who are interested in taking on their own practice budgets. If GPs in Stockport feel that they cannot take on that responsibility, they need not be too troubled as GP practice budgets are available only to practices which want them and can negotiate a satisfactory budget with my Department.

Mr. Watts: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some of my constituents have been concerned by what they have been told about the proposals by representatives of vested interests but have been reassured when they have read the proposals? Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider taking steps to ensure that more patients have the opportunity to read the proposals rather than having to rely on the distorted views peddled by producers in the Health Service?

Mr. Clarke: We have a short popular leaflet setting out the proposals and we are trying to distribute it as widely as possible through post office counters and GPs' surgeries, where they will carry them, pharmacists' counters, and so on. I agree with my hon. Friend that, while we respect the right of anyone to have a different opinion about the reforms, it is a pity when some people get carried away. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said, I hope that there will be no outburst of misinformation to patients, telling old ladies that they will be deprived of treatment, as only a fringe few of the medical profession will be inclined to indulge in that.

Mr. Robin Cook: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the Secretary of State does not intend to attach any weight to the public reaction to the White Paper, as if he were to do so it would sink under the weight of criticism. Does he admit that in the past couple of weeks alone it has been rejected by the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, nine royal colleges and a meeting in Nottingham attended by 160 GPs, many from his own constituency, who unanimously rejected his proposals? In retrospect, does he agree that the panning that his White Paper received shows how wise he was after the 1982 restructuring when he said:
Anybody who comes along in any successive Government and talks about yet another restructuring wants his head examined.

Mr. Clarke: I could have told the hon. Gentleman before we started that the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Joint Consultative Council would come out against these or any similar proposals. I understand that the meeting of general practitioners in Nottingham was concerned largely with the GPs' contract, about which there is a later question on

the Order Paper. All the information that I have received is that the meeting came to no clear conclusion. That is no doubt a matter that I shall take up with the local medical committee when it comes to its conclusions. In my contacts with consultants and GPs, I have found that many of them are interested in the process of reform. They know that the Health Service has had a 40 per cent. increase in expenditure in real terms and they know that on top of that growth in expenditure improvement is needed in the way in which the Health Service is managed, the way in which it adapts to modern services and the way in which it responds to patients. There is a great deal of goodwill throughout the profession which will put the reform into practice as long as we discuss the detailed implementation carefully with it.

Mr. Allason: Last Saturday morning, I had a meeting with the GP who represents more than 100 GPs in my constituency. My right hon. and learned Friend may be interested to know that, by and large, that GP expressed broad support for the White Paper. He said that many of the items in it were matters for which he had pressed for a number of years. Will my right hon. and learned Friend also accept, however, that there is a widespread anxiety, especially among patients who have expensive complaints such as those who have had colostomies, who are worried that there is no guarantee from the Government about their continued support? Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to give that guarantee?

Mr. Clarke: We have sought to address that in the working paper, which makes it clear that for very expensive patients there will have to be a ceiling above which expenditure cannot be carried by any GP's budget. I will bear my hon. Friend's point in mind as we work out the details. I agree with him that we must come up with a system in practice which guarantees that such patients will in no circumstances be deprived of the necessary treatment. It is clear that such a system is perfectly feasible and it will be worked out in discussions with the profession over the coming months.

GPs (Rural Areas)

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to meet the British Medical Association to discuss the income of general practitioners in rural areas.

Mr. Clarke: I met the British Medical Association's general medical services council yesterday. We discussed the subject of general practice in rural areas among other issues arising from the discussions that have taken place throughout the past year on proposals to amend regulations for the remuneration of general practitioners.

Mr. Livsey: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the county of Powys, which has the sparsest population in England and Wales, members of the BMA met on Sunday and rejected the NHS proposals as they affected rural areas on the grounds that they abolish choice, reduce income and redistribute money from rural areas to inner cities, without making special provision for inner cities? The proposals will make some rural practices non-viable, so the GPs are unhappy about them as they affect rural areas.

Mr. Clarke: I cannot understand the argument about reducing choice because our new contract proposal is based on a background of making it easier for patients to change and choose their GPs, and GPs will be allowed to advertise to make that choice easier. We are putting forward a new proposal for a rural practice allowance to replace the previous allowance for rural areas. As the hon. Gentleman's constituency is so sparsely populated, I was surprised to hear that his GPs believe that they will lose by the proposal. I will try to ensure that the hon. Gentleman is given further details of our proposals. We have addressed ourselves very much to the fact that in rural areas with a sparse and scattered population it is necessary to weight the basic practice allowance in favour of doctors because they will not have the same opportunity of earning income through patient lists and capitation fees as is possible in more populated areas.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what proportion of the rural practitioners who receive the allowance at the moment will be excluded by the new arrangements? Will he reassure general practitioners that the total on which the percentage target for cervical smears is calculated will exclude virgins and those who have been invited to take the test but have refused?

Mr. Clarke: My proposals for a new contract, based on where I say that we have got to after 12 months of negotiations, were issued after the General Medical Services Committee put its version of where we are at the moment to its members. When we met yesterday we exchanged arguments about rural practice. The GMSC prefers the present system whereby doctors qualify for rural practice supplements if they practise in an area which was served by a rural district council before the local government reorganisation in the early 1970s. I prefer a system based on density of population. We are still discussing the matter. When it is resolved, it will be clear whether practitioners in my hon. Friend's rural constituency are advantaged or disadvantaged.
On my hon. Friend's second point, it is right to set targets. It is no good paying for every smear test because they are part of the ordinary routine day-to-day duties of a GP. We are setting targets for good performance so that extra payments are made to those who achieve levels of screening for which we think good practice should aim. However, I agree that we must define the target group carefully. People who have had hysterectomies, people who have moved off the list, nuns and virgins must be taken into account.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that most people in my rural constituency cannot even choose their doctor, let alone the hospital to which the doctor sends them? Is he aware that that is why, without any encouragement from me, GPs in Ayrshire have unanimously rejected his proposal, including all the GPs in the marginal constituency of the Secretary of State for Defence? Is it part of the Minister's tactics to remove one of his main competitors for the post of Leader of the Opposition after the next election?

Mr. Clarke: For the past 12 months we have been negotiating changes to a contract which was last changed in the mid-1960s. The local medical committees tend to pass resolutions saying that they prefer the contract that

they have rather than any changes. If changes are made to determine who receives more or less than the average, it is inevitable that some will be gainers and some will be losers. I suspect that the losers are running along to the local medical committee meetings with more enthusiasm than the others. We are discussing the matter with the GPs and their representatives. The object of changing the contract, from my point of view and from the patient's point of view, is that we must particularly reward those doctors who do most of the work and those who introduce new services and hit performance targets for key services such as vaccinations and screening. Some doctors will do well because that will benefit them, but others will not do so well and will have to improve their practice. That is what a patient-oriented, consumer-conscious NHS is all about.

Mr. Conway: When I meet the GPs in Shropshire on Tuesday night what message would my right hon. and learned Friend like me to give them to assure them that GPs in rural areas will be treated equally favourably with those in the larger city areas at which many of his proposals are aimed? When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the BMA, will he remind it that the Labour Government cut spending on the NHS, so there is no point in looking to the Opposition for genuine support?

Mr. Clarke: First, I ask my hon. Friend to point out that the only disagreement between myself and the GMSC is about the form of help for those who live in rural areas —the way in which we weight the capitation payment for rural areas. We agree that all the basic practice allowances need to be added to the capitation fees in rural areas to compensate for the sparsity of population. My hon. Friend can also tell his no doubt excellent practitioners in Shropshire that those who can achieve the performance targets that we have set and introduce the new services will benefit under our contract proposals. He might also point out that many parts of the contract are agreed. For example, a new payment for child surveillance services was first put forward by the practitioners representatives four or five years ago. After my meeting yesterday, I think that it is still generally welcomed by those who represent the doctors and by the doctors themselves.

Mr. Galbraith: Is the Minister aware of the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), that capitation fees will be banded? Can the Minister confirm that he is discussing that point with the BMA? Can he also explain the further statement by the hon. Member for Stirling that banding will ensure that, irrespective of the number of patients on a list, the income from capitation fees will be exactly the same in each practice?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is having separate discussions with the Scottish branch of the GMSC, not about the whole proposition but about certain aspects of it which affect Scotland, and reassurances were given to rural practitioners in Scotland in particular in the White Paper "Working for Patients". I can only ask the hon. Gentleman to refer his question to my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for health in Scotland because I am not party to discussions between him and the GMSC on the subject of the Scottish Health Service or any Scottish variations on the contract that I am negotiating.

Hospitals (Wage and Salary Rates)

Mr. Ashley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the effect on the National Health Service wage bill of allowing individual hospitals to set their own wage and salary rates.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: None. In common with other White Paper proposals, the aim of freeing self-governing hospitals from central control over pay is to get the best value for money in terms of patient care from the resources that are made available.

Mr. Ashley: I am not surprised that the Secretary of State should try to dodge that question. Is he aware that these proposals are a recipe for chaos, because the BMA simply will not agree to doctors having variable rates, and because those other workers in the National Health Service who may be forced to accept them will be bitterly and deeply resentful? Why does the Secretary of State always allow ideology to override common sense?

Mr. Clarke: There is nothing ideological about it. There are many towns and cities in this country where the district general hospital is the largest single employer, and if it becomes self-governing and local people are put in charge of it, I can see no earthly reason why it should be said that they are not capable of settling the pay and conditions of their own staff if they want to. There would be advantages if they did, because the present national, centralised system is often too inflexible to enable local management to deal with local shortages of skilled staff.
I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the BMA will automatically oppose the proposal. Sometimes I too am guilty of leaping to the conclusion that the BMA will always oppose things. Many doctors and other staff in the hospital concerned will feel loyalty to their own hospital and town, and will not be at all averse to the idea that pay and conditions should be settled more locally.

Dr. Glyn: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this flexibility will allow us to adjust local conditions, which will probably result in a more efficient service and better pay?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend, and many people in our great hospitals up and down the country will find this possibility one of the more attractive features of self-government.

Ms. Harman: Is the Minister aware that the Health Service Journal this week carries an advertisement for a finance director for a London teaching hospital, which it indicates is going to opt out? Will he please name that London teaching hospital or, if he does not know the name of it, will he find out and tell me by the end of today? Is it not reprehensible—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Harman: Is it not reprehensible that the process of opting out should be done in secrecy and by stealth?

Mr. Clarke: I know that the hon. Lady keeps picketing outside a certain hospital in case it becomes self-governing, but I am not going to help her by letting her know whether she is picketing outside the right one. She will have to find out for herself in due course. When proper applications are put in for self-government, of course they will be dealt with openly; we will publicise them all and discuss them fully

with any interested members of the general public. I am not responsible for the advertisements, or even the copy that appear in The Health Service Journal.

Statistical Information

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what categories of statistical information his Department receives on a regular basis from district and regional health authorities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): From 1 April 1987 districts have been collecting a new range of statistical data. From this new data we are producing a set of 350 basic health service indicators. Following consultation and verification with health authorities, these will be published in July. We plan to publish the indicators for 1988–89 in January 1990.

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend will know how useful such statistical returns as the performance indicators are in indentifying hard-working health authorities such as my own in Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde. He will also know that in the case of the financial returns of the Health Service it is taking some time to receive this information. Will he tell the House a little more about the steps that he is taking to achieve more timely availability of that information and to find a new set of performance indicators?

Mr. Freeman: After initial problems last year we are now satisfied with the timely receipt of information from districts. The provisional figures for 1987–88 for my hon. Friend's own health district demonstrate that there is a continuation of the excellent trend of treating more patients at relatively low cost. My hon. Friend is to be congratulated, as is his district health authority.

Dr. Moonie: What estimate is being made of the accuracy of the data that are being received?

Mr. Freeman: As I said, we are now circulating provisional data for 1987–88 to the regions and the district health authorities so that, over the next two to three months, the data can be verified. We will publish in July, when the data are verified. In January next year—that is to say, nine months after the end of the financial year which ends this month—we will publish this year's figures.

Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average annual increase after inflation in the capital investment programme of the Yorkshire regional health authority between 1979 and 1988; what was the figure for the years 1974 to 1979; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeman: A direct comparison between 1978–79 and 1987–88 shows an increase in real terms of 15·6 per cent. in the rate of capital expenditure in the Yorkshire region. A similar comparison of 1974–75 with 1978–79 shows a decrease in real terms of 7·9 per cent. measured at 1987–88 prices.

Mr. Riddick: Can my hon. Friend confirm that those excellent figures have led to increased and improved patient care in Yorkshire? Does he agree that, despite the noisy rhetoric of Opposition Members, not least the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the figures


conclusively demonstrate that Labour cuts hospital building and that the NHS is safe only in Conservative hands?

Mr. Freeman: I am happy to confirm that. The additional capital investment that has gone into the Yorkshire region—indeed, the whole of the National Health Service in England—has manifested itself in greater patient activity. In Yorkshire, over the past 10 years, out-patient cases have gone up from 2·5 million a year to 3 million a year, and in-patient activity over the last five years is up from 450,000 per annum to 550,000 cases per annum.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister accept that in Bradford the combination of cutting expenditure and creeping privatisation is creating widespread concern among those who depend upon the National Health Service for their health care? Will he nail the rumour that he has it in mind to appoint councillor Eric Pickles as the chair of Bradford district health authority? His appointment would have a devastating effect upon the morale of those who serve in the Health Service in Bradford and would be most unwelcome to the citizens of that city who depend on the service for their health care.

Mr. Freeman: What I can confirm is that, in terms of allocations to the Yorkshire region, as to all regions of England, there is a substantial real increase in resources going to the Health Service in the next financial year. In the case of Yorkshire, the increase is 2·5 per cent. in real terms.
The chairmanship of the district health authority is a matter for consideration and announcement in due course.

Deprivation and Illness

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is funding or carrying out regarding the relationship between deprivation and illness in general.

Mr. Freeman: The Department and the Medical Research Council are funding a number of research projects into the relationship between social conditions and health. I will place a list in the Library later today.

Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that there is great concern in my constituency about the Greater Glasgow health board, because of the standardised mortality rate in the age groups 40 to 69 which is 70 per cent. higher than in Sweden, Norway and Switzerland? In the east end of the city the rate is 43 per cent. higher than in any other part of Scotland.

Mr. Freeman: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the Scottish Minister with responsibility for health. The formula for allocating resources in future, the replacement of RAWP—the resources allocation working party—will reflect not only the resident population in each district health authority but morbidity. If social conditions manifest themselves in higher sickness rates, the allocation will be greater.

Mr. Hind: Is my hon. Friend aware that we have a very high level of unemployment in Skelmersdale in west Lancashire, and as a consequence there are certain types of disease that need to be treated? At a recent meeting of the local branch of the British Medical Association, it was said

that under the new White Paper there might be a temptation for doctors who work in trust hospitals to overtreat their patients. Will my hon. Friend undertake that the research and detailed information that is available will be used to make sure that throughout the country that does not occur?

Mr. Freeman: The activities of consultants and doctors in all hospitals within the National Health Service, including self-governing hospital trusts which will remain within the NHS, are matters for the very high standards of professional organisations governing the conduct of consultants and doctors.

Mr. Robin Cook: Did the Minister see last week's report by the Health Visitors Association on homeless families and their health? Did he note its findings that, among the children of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, diarrhoea because of poor sanitation, respiratory infection because of dampness, and infestation with lice and fleas, are common? Does he accept those findings, and, if he does, will he minute his colleagues at the Department of the Environment and spell out to them the appalling impact on the health of our children from the sevenfold increase in homelessness under this Government?

Mr. Freeman: The standard of health of the children of this country has consistently improved under this Government. The Department is now undertaking some £18 million of research, including research into various aspects of child health that I referred to earlier. Next year, the amount spent on research by the Medical Research Council, including investigation into child health, will total about £176 million.

Mr. Michael Morris: Has my hon. Friend seen the parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on average per capita prescribing, which seems to suggest that the highest prescription expenditure is in the most deprived areas of the United Kingdom? Does that not suggest that indicative budgets should be reconsidered?

Mr. Freeman: There is no question but that some doctors—I stress some—are over-prescribing. The pur-pose of our proposal for indicative drug budgets is to bring the practice of all doctors up to the best.

Child Minding

Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on the carrying out of child minding by children.

Mr. Mellor: I am afraid that I can add nothing to the reply given to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on 6 March by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Archer: But does the Minister agree that a statutory provision serves no purpose unless it is effectively monitored and enforced? Does not the fact that the Minister is answering this question indicate the need for co-ordination among the numerous Government Departments that are responsible for enforcing the law on child employment? Is not the primary need for more resources for the law enforcement authorities?

Mr. Mellor: I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's sincerity. If there was evidence of substantial evasion of these rules, I should certainly want to look at it. But, with respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he has such evidence he should let the Government have it, because we are not aware of any widespread evasion.

Mr. Tom Clarke: If the statutory provisions to deal with the matter are inadequate—and I have to say that there is a great deal of support from voluntary and professional organisations for what my right hon. And learned Friend says—will the Minister consider them very seriously when the Children Bill is considered by the House?

Mr. Mellor: There are two points. First, there is no doubt that no one under the age of 16 can be registered as a child minder, so any attempt to make a child into a child minder is against the law. But, secondly, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a need to reconsider the law on under-fives. I expect that we shall be doing that together when the Children Bill is considered by the House.

NHS (Expenditure)

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the gross domestic product was spent on the National Health Service in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the percentage in 1978.

Mr. Mellor: In 1987, 5·4 per cent. of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product was spent on the National Health Service compared with 4·8 per cent. in 1978.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. and learned Friend think that these figures show up the different priorities that Conservative and Labour Governments attach to the National Health Service?

Mr. Mellor: They do, because not only has there been an increase of 40 per cent. in real terms in revenue spending on the NHS—double the rate under Labour—but an increase in the capital spend, which was slashed to the bone under Labour. Above all, there is a growing national wealth of which health is getting a larger slice. Since the foundation of the NHS, no Government's record can compare with that.

Mr. Haynes: We have another Minister bragging at the Dispatch Box. Is he aware that I opened a health fair in my constituency last Friday and that I was told in no uncertain terms that more resources were needed? There is £14 billion in the bucket so the Minister should put his hand in and get some out—[Interruption.]—for the central Nottinghamshire health authority.

Mr. Mellor: I am glad to feel as though I am back at Chelsea football club. The hon. Gentleman's comments find a real echo among my hon. Friends. He can tell his constituents that from the beginning of April, £2 billion of extra resources will be made available to the National Health Service. It is a long time since any Government have done that.

Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a question not just of how much, but of how we

spend it? Will he urge the BMA and the presidents of the royal colleges to look carefully at the well reasoned and constructive critique of the National Association of Health Authorities in England and Wales and warn them that outbursts based on emotion rather than fact will do for the image of the medical profession what King Herod did for babysitting?

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to what the National Association of Health Authorities in England and Wales has said, to which the Opposition have not drawn attention, because the response of the association was constructive. It has said that the proposals will benefit the Health Service. It is not good enough just to sign a large cheque because what matters is the patient care that is bought with it. We know that there are tremendous variations in efficiency and effectiveness in different parts of the NHS and our job is to draw the standards of them all up to the standards of the best. We are the only party that has provided a blueprint for doing that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Prime Minister take the time today to check that the forthcoming tour of the Secretary of State for Health will include an early meeting with the joint consultants committee? Has the Prime Minister had a chance to study the remarks made by the chairman of the JCC, Sir Anthony Graham who warned that the health proposals present real risks to patient care in this country and who said that what is needed instead is more money and more doctors and nurses involved in the decision-making process? If the consultation is to mean anything, what more can the health professions do, say or prove, to get the Prime Minister to have second thoughts about the proposals which are potentially extremely damaging to the provision of health care in this country?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State reply from the Dispatch Box a moment ago to the effect that £2 billion more will be given to the Health Service this coming year and the hon. Gentleman knows that provision has been made for more consultants. The White Paper offers a choice both to general practitioners and to hospital consultants to be members of self-governing hospital staffs. Some will choose not to take that choice; others will choose to do so. Just because some do not want to make use of it does not mean that they should attempt to deny that choice to others.

Mr. Butterfill: When my right hon. Friend is next in Bournemouth, will she take the opportunity to visit the Bournemouth and district water company, which has been a private water company for 126 years and has charges


that are among the cheapest in the country at about only 60 per cent. of those of the water authorities? Is that not an example of what can be done by private enterprise?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend and his constituents. A quarter of the water industry has been privatised for years. Even some countries that profess to believe theoretically in nationalisation still choose to have their water privatised because it gives a better service.

Mr. Kinnock: From the detailed briefing notes that she has with her, will the Prime Minister give the House a full and exhaustive list of all the representative professional organisations that are backing her plans for the Health Service?

The Prime Minister: I wish the right hon. Gentleman had listened to the reply I gave previously. However, I unerstand that he has usually made up his questions before he has heard any of my replies. The Health Service White Paper—[Interruption.] I should point out straight away that there are now far more doctors in the Health Service than there were when the right hon. Gentleman's party was in Government and there are far more nures. But the White Paper—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: The White Paper gives a choice, both to general practitioners and to hospitals. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe in choice, although yesterday he professed to believe in it— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: Yesterday he annunciated; today he repudiated.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a doctor just over the border from my constituency, but serving patients in my constituency, is abusing his professional position by inscribing political slogans on repeat prescriptions?

The Prime Minister: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but I am sure that she is very able to deal with that matter herself.

Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cook: If the economy is so healthy, if we can afford the luxury of a post-Budget debate among Conservative Members as to what to do with the £14 billion surplus, if our standing in the international community is as high as the Prime Minister would have us believe, why is it that, in the 26th year of the United Nations peace-keeping force in Cyprus, our Commonwealth cousins from Canada can be billeted in four-star comfort, while our serving men and women and their families are condemned to the squalor of Jubilee camp and its associated quarters?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the £14 billion surplus, as the hon. Member knows, quite a lot of it will go to paying off the debt that the last Labour Government created—and a very good thing to do. With regard to our

massive defence budget, I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member supports a big defence budget and, apparently, would like it to be even bigger.

Mr. Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend confirm the decision to stop any increase in night flights at Heathrow for five years, taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, whose respect for people's need for night sleep is warmly welcomed by hundreds of thousands living near Heathrow?

The Prime Minister: I understand that my hon. Friend has a very deep interest in perpetuating that situation. The only thing that I have seen which might ask for it to be revised is the very recent report of a Select Committee of this House, which, of course, we shall consider in due course.

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Livingstone: Has the Prime Minister seen the figures from the Bank of England, which show that the average life of equipment in British manufacturing industry is 28 years, compared with 18 years in America and 11 years in Japan? Does she believe that British workers should have equivalent equipment in order that they may compete effectively, and what does she intend to do to close the gap?

The Prime Minister: I fear that the hon. Member may not have heard my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night point out that business investment in this country now, as a proportion of gross domestic product, is higher than it has ever been, and that a good deal of the adverse balance of trade has gone into the import of the latest kind of investment, which will help to put up the productivity and production of our manufacturing capacity.

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the horrific and tragic events at Lockerbie were the result of a bomb being placed on an American aeroplane at a German airport, and that it is outrageous to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport hounded in this way?

The Prime Minister: I believe that my right hon. Friend will have an opportunity later today to rebut the totally unfair accusations that have been made against him by lesser men.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: May I make it clear that since that investigation became a murder investigation, responsibil-ity lies with the Lord Advocate.

Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is widespread support for the conclusion of her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that


no political solution will cope with terrorists—they just have to be extirpated"?

The Prime Minister: We have to use every possible instrument to try to deal with terrorists, including extradition. Both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland use everything possible, including the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, which is not always supported on both sides of the House. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we also need the co-operation of all the people in Northern Ireland, in the Republic and of the official Opposition if we are to eradicate terrorism.

Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is unanimous support on these Benches for her views on a free enterprise, deregulated Europe? Will she confirm that there is nothing inconsistent in that with the idea of a Europe more closely united, even though some of her Ministers seem to think so?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the kind of Europe we want is a free enterprise Europe, open to trade from outside its borders, and not putting up any more restrictions. Yes, we require a more united Europe to do those things together that we seek to do best as a unity, but at the same time respecting sovereignty and the infinite variety of cultures in the Community. I do not believe that the two are incompatible in any way.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Prime Minister aware that I am not short of a few bob? [Interruption.] Is she aware further that I have just received my poll tax bill which is more than £1,000 less than I paid in rates last year? Why has she devised a tax which ensures that the people on the lowest incomes have to pay more local tax in order to compensate people like me?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the people on the lowest incomes are fully protected— [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—both by an 80 per cent. rebate and by an additional payment through income support to enable them to pay the rest of the 20 per cent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be making handsome donations to some estimable charities.

Mr. Devlin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend take time during her busy day to condemn the very expensive advertising campaign which is currently being mounted by the Bar Council against the legal reforms and against the Crown prosecution service in particular? Does she agree that the time and resources of the Bar Council would be better spent in putting together a more constructive response to the need of the consumer as outlined in the excellent Green Paper on legal services?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government share the dismay of the director of public prosecutions at the unfair and inaccurate comments made in the advertisements. It is most unprofessional of the Bar Council to denigrate other members of the legal profession.

Mrs. Mahon: Will the Prime Minister tell the House why, since April 1988, there has been such a huge increase in rent arrears in the public sector?

The Prime Minister: As the National Audit Office has shown, very frequently the rents have not been properly collected. Those people who are poorest already have their rent paid 100 per cent. by housing benefit, so the rent arrears—[interruption]—can apply only to those people who are able to afford to pay rent. It is a disgrace that those rents have not been properly collected.

Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the interest that is now being shown by member countries of the European Free Trade Association in joining the European Community? Will she remind the House of the importance of creating a wider Europe rather than the deeper Europe propounded by the Labour party and other parties of the Left?

The Prime Minister: We have always been in favour of a close association on trade between EFTA and the European Community. As my hon. Friend knows, that does indeed exist. At the moment our main task is to bring to fruition the single market in 1992, but I agree with him that we must constantly look to the Europe across the European divide and we are doing that. Recently the Community, under the leadership of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, concluded a trade agreement with Hungary which will be of great benefit to that country and will be a very fair arrangement for the European Community.

Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 21 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the Prime Minister contact the chairman of the Wakefield health authority today to try to bring some common sense to bear upon that authority, so as to reduce the waiting lists that are building up because the secretaries of consultants and other secretaries are locked out of their workplace? The situation is that, because of the developments in the Wakefield health authority, people are unable to receive the treatment for which they are waiting. Will the Prime Minister ensure that that health authority applies common sense to the situation?

The Prime Minister: I cannot say that I will myself contact the Wakefield health authority. I am quite certain that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health will have heard what has been said and will take the appropriate action.

Lockerbie Air Crash

Mr. Neil Kinnock: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the state of the investigation into the planting of a bomb aboard Pan Am flight 103 on 21 December, and if he will give a further account of steps that he has taken in connection with airline security before and since the air disaster over Lockerbie?

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): The criminal investigation into the Lockerbie disaster is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. Last Friday, 17 March he announced the present state of the investigation. He said that the type of item of baggage in which the tape recorder was contained was now known and that this would allow the police to take a further step forward in the inquiries that they are making, both on a national and an international basis.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate commented on the remarkable progress of the inquiry; but he made it clear that the evidence which had been secured so far had not yet led to the identification of the person or persons responsible for placing the bomb in baggage on Pan Am flight 103. Inquiries were continuing with that end in view. My right hon. and learned Friend promised to authorise disclosure of relevant information about the progress of the investigation wherever possible and as soon as possible, recognising the general interest of the public and the particular interest of the relatives of the victims to be informed about the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition also asked me about the steps I have taken over aviation security before and after the disaster at Lockerbie. Late in October 1988 the German police in Frankfurt discovered a radio cassette bomb, which contained barometric and timing devices indicating that it was intended to sabotage an aircraft.
The Department of Transport learnt of this on 17 November through the normal channels. On 18 November, the Department received a copy of a bulletin to United States airlines from the United States Federal Aviation Administration about the events in Frankfurt. Having received further information on 22 November about the radio cassette bomb, the Department issued a warning by telex on the same day to United Kingdom airports and airlines, pointing to the possible existence of other such devices. On the basis of this the authorities at Heathrow airport simulated a radio bomb and distributed photographs for the training of their security staff.
The Department subsequently sought photographs of the German radio bomb and additional information. The Department then set in train the preparation of a supplementary circular to the aviation industry covering the coloured photographs with a little extra information. On 19 December the Department's principal aviation security adviser signed the circular. This was not sent out because of the need to obtain reproductions of the photographs in colour.
On 21 December the Lockerbie disaster took place; and on 22 December I made a statement in the Commons about it. At that time there was no certainty that the disaster was caused by sabotage; indeed, many then considered it equally likely to have resulted from a structural failure of the aircraft. It was only on 28

December that the officer superintending the investigation at Lockerbie announced that the Pan American aircraft had been destroyed by a bomb. My Department immediately ordered increased security measures for United States airlines, particularly for hold baggage.
I attended an emergency meeting of the National Aviation Security Committee on 5 January at which it was decided to bring in further measures in relation to cabin baggage, hold baggage and cargo. I made another statement, bringing the House up to date, on 10 January.
Subsequently, I was concerned that our requirements for the control of access to restricted areas were not being properly observed and ordered new rules for the issue and use of passes at all United Kingdom airports. In particular, I asked the chairman of BAA, Sir Norman Payne, for a report on the security of restricted areas at BAA airports. His comprehensive report sets out measures which are being and will be taken, and I have asked for a follow-up report on progress in April.
The threat did not end with Lockerbie. There remained a risk from bombs of the kind found in Frankfurt; therefore, once colour reproductions of the photographs had been made, the Department's supplementary circular, which repeated the telex warning of 22 November, was issued by post in the second week of January to United Kingdom airports and airlines and to some foreign airlines, including Pan Am, which had already been informed by the United States Federal Aviation Authority on 18 November.
On 16 February, the investigators announced in Lockerbie that the bomb that caused the disaster had been contained in a radio cassette player packed in luggage—luggage which almost certainly did not originate from Heathrow—in the hold of the aircraft. On 17 February, the Department issued its aviation security circular 1/89 recommending procedures that airports and airlines should follow in the light of this information and of the possibility that other similar bombs might exist in Germany or elsewhere.
By telex on 20 March the Department reminded airports and airlines of the 17 February circular and re-emphasised the need to apply the procedures set out, as well as adding supplementary recommendations.
I turn to the anonymous telephone call to the United States embassy in Helsinki on 5 December 1988. This telephone call warned of an attempt to sabotage a Pan American aircraft flying between Frankfurt and the United States within two weeks, which expired on 19 December. The caller did not mention London. Information about this telephone call was disseminated in an FAA bulletin addressed to United States airlines, which my Department received on 9 December.
My Department immediately had the information in the bulletin assessed in conjunction with appropriate United States authorities; the conclusion was that the information therein had little credibility. My Department decided that for the moment no further measures were necessary in the light of the bulletin. Special security measures were already in force in respect of United States flights out of the United Kingdom.
In a written answer to a question in another place on 16 March, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate said that an inquiry by police officers involved in the Lockerbie investigation into the Helsinki "warning" had produced no evidence to indicate that the telephone call had any relevance to the Lockerbie disaster and the


investigation into it. The United States Government are of the same view. Testifying on behalf of the FAA to a United States Senate sub-committee on 14 March, Ambassador Clayton E. McManaway said:
By 10 December the Finnish police had determined that the 'threat' was a hoax. The US fully concurred in this judgement.
In the wake of the Pan Am bombing this 'threat' was thoroughly reinvestigated by the Finns, the US and other concerned Governments. It is our unanimous conclusion that the Helsinki 'threat' was baseless.
In view of this, it is disgraceful that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has cruelly deceived the relatives of those who died by encouraging them to believe that this warning was genuine.[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Channon: In all of this we must not lose sight of the fact that what really matters is the apprehension of the terrorists who perpetrated this crime. It is my responsibility to ensure that our airports and airlines respond vigorously to the threat that now exists from international terrorism. It is a responsibility that I take extremely seriously and am determined to discharge.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Transport for responding to my question and now making a statement.
There are two issues that need to be addressed this afternoon. The first is the way in which the Department of Transport treated the bomb warnings that it received before the Lockerbie tragedy. The second is the way in which the Secretary of State has dealt with events since the tragedy.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that there were significant differences between the telex issued by his Department on 22 November and the letter dated 19 December? Does he accept, in particular, that there were at least three new and vital pieces of information in that 19 December letter that could have assisted in the detection of an explosive device in a radio cassette recorder?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept also that, whereas the memorandum of 22 November contained only a general warning about devices, the 19 December letter contained a quite specific assessment that other devices were in circulation? More than that, is it true that the information contained in the 19 December letter was available to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and international police authorities even before his memorandum of 22 November? If it is true, why did he not follow the course of action taken by authorities in other countries that received the information and send the full information to the airlines immediately?
In any event, will the Secretary of State tell us exactly when the letter dated 19 December was posted? Why was it delayed at all and, when that letter was finally sent, why did it not go by the speediest means available?
I now turn, as the Secretary of State did, to the question of what has become known as the Helsinki warning. Why did the Secretary of State dismiss this warning as having little credibility? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are matters that the whole House wishes to hear.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Secretary of State confirm that we now know that other authorities, especially the United

States authorities, made the connection between the Helsinki warning and earlier warnings and circulated it to airlines and airport aviation security personnel m FAA Bulletin 88/22? If those authorities did that, why did not the Secretary of State for Transport in Britain?
Will the Secretary of State also tell us why. on 10 January, when he made a statement to the House about the warnings that had been received, he referred only to the Helsinki warning and made no mention of the 22 November warning? Why, in that statement. did he disclose the warning that he said was unimportant, and yet make no mention of the warnings which, he now tells us, were critical?
Turning to more recent events—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the whole House—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) should behave like everybody else.

Mr. Kinnock: The public at home and abroad will not fail to notice the interruptions from the Conservative party.
I shall turn to the most recent events, which have a strong bearing on affairs because it is clear that if any details exist of the identity of terrorist bombers, it would obviously be indefensibly irresponsible to report those details to anyone as it would seriously diminish the chances of catching those criminals.
Did the Secretary of State have a meeting last Wednesday with Ian Aitken, Julia Langdon, Robin Oakley and Chris Buckland? During the course of that meeting, did he use words that could reasonably be taken to mean that the authorities knew the identity and whereabouts of those suspected of committing this atrocity? He must tell us that. If the Secretary of State was not responsible for that story, what action has he taken to discover who was? What action will he take against newspapers which this morning attributed the briefing to him?
As everyone is convinced that everything humanly possible must be done to prevent another tragedy such as that at Lockerbie, will the Secretary of State give further consideration to an independent inquiry to provide further means of improving the procedures for combating the threat to airline safety posed by terrorism?

Mr. Channon: I shall deal specifically with all the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman in his supplementary questions. First, he asked me the differences between the November warning and the December supplementary circular, which he said was significant. The House will no doubt be interested to know exactly what the 22 November warning contained. It was sent by telex and contained the following vital information. It said that a device had been found in Germany linked to Palestinians. It said that it was a Toshiba radio cassette player and gave its model number and exact dimensions. It said that it contained two sorts of battery—and gave the dimension and voltage of the additional batteries. It gave the form, wrapping and weight of the explosive, the sort of detonator, and the two activating devices. It said that the radio would not work and could be armed by plugging in an antenna jack plug. That information was sufficient to enable specialists at Heathrow to build a mock-up of the device.
The telex urged recipients to inform security staff of the details. Apart from containing a photograph, the letter of 19 December added little. It added that there was more


wiring than normal but that this was not a significant indicator. It said that the batteries were not secured and that the jack plug might be taped to the side. The batteries, wiring and role of the jack plug had been referred to in the 22 November telex. Therefore, the House will be able to judge that the important warning—[Interruption.] I do not want to duck any of the questions put by the right hon. Gentleman. He asked me when the photograph was sent out. As I said in my statement—which I am sure that he heard—the photograph was sent out in the second week of January—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because many of the people concerned with sending it out were at the time dealing with events after the Lockerbie disaster—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must give the Secretary of State a fair hearing.

Mr. Channon: Let me turn to the right hon. Gentleman's second point, about the Helsinki warning. I have tried to explain to the House on a number of occasions—and I thought I had been fairly specific this afternoon—that the reason we gave no credence to the Helsinki warning was that it was not worthy of any. The American Government do not think it worthy of credence; nor do the Finnish Government. The Lockerbie investigators are not following up any trails relating to that warning in their inquiry. The only person who seems, for some extraordinary reason, to be still pursuing it is the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. [Interruption.] I must say to the Leader of the Opposition that the Helsinki warning is a red herring. I have never misled the House. We know that his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is still on that old story, but I have already explained that the Lockerbie investigators gave it so little credence that they are not even following up a line of inquiry connected with it.
The right hon. Gentleman's next point concerned recent events. He asked me about my movements on Wednesday. I am not prepared to comment on meetings with individuals—[Interruption.]—nor, I think, would any hon. Member in similar circumstances, but the interpretation by some people, most of whom are not present, of what I am alleged to have said last week has astonished me. At no time have I known—or, indeed, could I have known—more about the progress of the investigation than was stated by the Lord Advocate last Friday. He is in charge of the investigation, and he knows all the facts. I know no more than he does, and I have nothing further to add on that point. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has been asked a number of detailed questions, and he must be given a chance to answer them.

Mr. Channon: Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked for an independent inquiry into the whole matter. I can think of nothing that would delay the progress of the general investigation of this terrible crime—a murder that killed more than 270—than to take people off that investigation to set up an independent inquiry. What we want to do is apprehend those who perpetrated this appalling act, and I should have thought and hoped that that was common ground on both sides of the House.

Sir Hector Monro: I thank my right hon. Friend for his very clear statement. Does he agree that the best way to reduce the anguish of the relatives of those who lost their lives in the Lockerbie disaster, both in the air and on the ground, and that of the townsfolk would be for the police to track down and arrest the murderers, and to know whether the bomb was placed on the aircraft in Frankfurt or in London? Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to assist the chief constable and the Lord Advocate to that end, and not be diverted by the Opposition's scurrilous call for an inquiry that would do nothing to help?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who, after all, has played a very active and sad part in this tragic event, and I take his advice very seriously. That is certainly what the Government are determined to do.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Does the Secretary of State realise that many hon. Members recognise that this is a peculiarly difficult and delicate affair, and that that is why we on these Benches have not called for his resignation on each of the past few days?
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate, however, that his answers today, especially about the information given to journalists last week, are unsatisfactory and will not retain the confidence of many people in the nation about his handling of the affair? Will he say clearly whether he or any member of his Department—or, as far as he knows, any Member of the Government—gave journalists information that enabled them to publish articles last week about arrests or impending arrests that were subsequently described by the Lord Advocate as "wild, irresponsible speculation"?

Mr. Channon: I have reviewed in my mind many times all my conversations with anyone last week, and, in all honour, I must say that, to the best of my recollection, I have said no more than where we believe the bomb was put on the plane, how it was concealed and that the police were making brilliant progress. I know no more than what the Lord Advocate who is in charge of the criminal investigation has said.

Mr. David Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Pan Am was fully briefed about the Frankfurt warning and the Helsinki warning well before the tragedy occurred? Will he confirm that Pan Am alone is responsible for checking the baggage, that Pan Am let the bomb on board and that there is not a shred of evidence that there was a breach of British security' Will he further confirm that his plans to protect the travelling public do not include the character assassination and gutter politics currently being used by the Opposition?

Mr. Channon: I think I can confirm all my hon. Friend's points and I am grateful for his support at a very difficult time.

Mr. Alfred Morris: How can the Secretary of State possibly defend a delay of well over three weeks in sending out the circular on 19 December? Exactly when was the colour photograph of the terrorist device received in his Department? When others can wire photographs so quickly and effectively, why did it take so long to send that photograph to airlines


and airports? What possible confidence can the House have in an administration that was so dilatory in a matter involving life and death?

Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman may not have fully considered what I said a few moments ago about the warning covering all the important points that went out on 22 November. I have read them out to the House, and I shall not waste time by repeating them, but the message sent by telex on 22 November contained all the vital information that was necessary and Heathrow acted upon it. Surely that is one of the acid tests. The December addition was a colour photograph, and a little more supplementary information was sent out with it.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend agree with a proposition that will command the support of the whole House, including the Leader of the Opposition, that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is as ruthlessly ambitious as he is deeply unpleasant?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a question relating to this statement.

Mr. Jim Sillars: rose——

Hon. Members: Who let him in?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is correctly back again.

Mr. Sillars: May I refer the Secretary of State to his very first statement to the House the day after the Lockerbie disaster? Is he aware that many people disbelieve a great deal of what he says because he allowed the House to believe that the accident might have been caused by structural failure when the prima facie evidence within his Department pointed to the possibility—it was no more than that at the time—of a terrorist act? Is it not the case that infomation has had to be dragged out of the Secretary of State?
May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to his often-repeated statement this afternoon that he knows no more than the Lord Advocate? He was asked not whether he knows any more than the Lord Advocate, but whether he spoke to those journalists in a way that was fairly interpreted by the Daily Record.

Mr. Channon: I have debated the matter with the hon. Gentleman before, and he took a very reasonable line then. I am rather surprised by the first part of his question. He said that it was wrong to speculate on structural failure, but that was very much in people's minds at the time and it was extremely important that that matter should be disposed of and that people should not reach premature conclusions about whether the disaster was caused by a bomb or by structural failure. In one of his better remarks, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members behind the Government Front Bench must behave.

Mr. Channon: He said that it would be better if we withheld any speculation until the investigation was completed, and I agreed with that. It was some days before it became clear whether it was structural failure or a bomb and that became clear on 28 December.
On the second point, I have nothing to add to what I said earlier. I know no more about the progress of the investigation than that stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. I cannot go further than that because I have nothing else to say.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private notice question. We have a further statement, a ten-minute Bill and business under the guillotine. I shall allow two more questions from each side.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that his prime responsibil-ity as Secretary of State for Transport is to do his best to ensure that tragedies such as Lockerbie do not occur again, first, by assisting the Lord Advocate in bringing the criminals to trial and justice and, secondly, by plugging all possible security loopholes in our civil aviation system? I hope that my right hon. Friend is reassured by the fact that Conservative Members have absolute faith in his ability and determination to achieve both objectives.

Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I agree that it is essential that we should have a continuing review of aviation security. We have taken a number of steps since Lockerhie.

Mr. Peter Snape: Are you a liar, or will you sue?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that I heard an unparliamentary word. If I did, will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw it?

Mr. Snape: I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not call the hon. Gentleman to ask a question. He used an unparliamentary word. I know that he is a man of honour and that he will withdraw it.

Mr. Snape: If I have been guilty of using an unparliamentary word—[HON. MEMBERS: "You have."] If I have, I withdraw it. The question remains——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman, who is a Front-Bench spokesman, to withdraw unreservedly. That would help the whole House.

Mr. Snape: Out of respect to you, Mr. Speaker——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is about to withdraw. Hon. Members must contain themselves.

Mr. Snape: Out of respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw unreservedly.

Mr. David Marshall: Is it true that the Secretary of State had to repudiate statements made by a Scottish Office Minister about the progress of the investigation? If so, was he referring to the Lord Advocate?

Mr. Channon: I recall no such incident. I do not think that I have repudiated any Scottish Office Minister on anything—probably throughout my parliamentary career.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Is it not abundantly clear that my right hon. Friend took every reasonable steps to alert the authorities at Heathrow to the type of threat that might occur and that—using all the lavish hindsight that other hon. Members are prepared to use—the only possible action that might have made a difference in those precise circumstances would have been an international agreement that baggage in transit at airports should be further re-examined?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. Arrangements in that regard have been changed and we shall keep them under continuing review.

Mr. Ray Powell: I am appalled at the arrogance of the Secretary of State. As one of the few hon. Members who were here on 22 December to listen to his statement in the House, I recall that he did not disclose to the House or the nation the knowledge that he has talked about this afternoon. Why was it that on that occasion, when the whole nation was shocked by this tragedy, he was not honest enough to disclose all the facts that he disclosed subsequently?

Mr. Channon: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that on reflection he will realise that that is an unfair remark. On 22 December, I told the House what I could. [Interruption.] I remember the hon. Gentleman being there; it was one of the few pleasing features of the day.
I also reported to the House on 10 January. The important point is that on that day the cause of the accident had not been established, as I told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) a few moments ago. That had to be established in the next few days. In such investigations, with delicate security considerations, the House of Commons must understand that if we wish to apprehend all the people involved it is essential that all of us exercise some restraint.

RUC Officers (Murder)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the murder yesterday of two senior RUC officers.
At approximately 1 pm yesterday afternoon Chief Superintendent Harry Breen, the divisional commander of Armagh, together with Superintendent Bob Buchanan, the local border superintendent, left Armagh in Superintendent Buchanan's car to attend a meeting with their opposite numbers in the Garda Siochana in Dundalk. I understand that their meeting lasted about one hour and that they then left to return to Armagh.
At 3.55 pm the RUC received information that there were two people believed dead in a car on the Edenappa road south of Jonesborough in County Armagh. The car was located at 4.15 pm some 50 yards north of the border. This car was found to be Superintendent Buchanan's and the dead were identified as the Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan. The clearance operation was put in hand immediately, involving both RUC and Army and with full assistance from the Garda and the Irish Army. Because of the risk of possible devices, this operation is necessarily taking some time to complete.
A full investigation is now under way into all the circumstances surrounding this outrage and in this connection I am grateful for the immediate and forthright assurance from the Taoiseach that every possible co-operation will be forthcoming to ensure that those responsible are apprehended and brought to justice.
Our immediate thoughts must be for the families, friends and serving colleagues of the two officers in extending our deepest sympathy to them in their tragic loss. Our duty to them now is to ensure that everything that can be done will be done to find the perpetrators of these murders, and that we take immediate account of any lessons that need to be drawn from this terrible event.
Nor, sadly, Mr. Speaker, are these the only murders in Northern Ireland in recent days and weeks. Since the beginning of this year, 25 people in Northern Ireland have died as a result of terrorist violence. More than half of those were the victims of purely sectarian attacks.
Only yesterday I called on the whole community to give the fullest support to the RUC in its work to protect everybody from the evil sectarian killers from whichever extreme they might come. Everybody owes a great debt to the RUC and the security forces for their unstinting efforts and courage against the terrorists, and indeed for their successes this year in the number of people who have been arrested and charged with many of these murders and attempted murders.
At a time when the whole community depends so much on the RUC, the murder of two senior officers shows how vile and evil is the IRA's intent. That is why it needs to know that such a deliberate attack on the security co-operation between ourselves and the Irish Government will only make us more determined to make that co-operation all the more effective and to rid the island of Ireland of the evil of terrorism.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On behalf of my colleagues, I join with the Secretary of State in expressing our horror and dismay at the murders


in South Armagh yesterday. The sympathies of myself and my hon. Friends go out to the families and friends of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan. Two more families have been bereaved, a price which unfortunately the families of the security forces may be asked to pay for the security of the rest of the community, and we should all remember that.
The murders yesterday follow a series of sectarian murders in the Province in the past month. The murders committed by the IRA and other paramilitary organisa-tions such as the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Irish People's Liberation Organisation have one thing in common: they reveal on the part of the perpetrators a total contempt for human rights, and the basic human right, the right to life. The killers are bent on destroying the possibility of peace in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that the Secretary of State shares my view that neither the people of Northern Ireland nor the vast majority of their elected representatives, nor members on both sides of this House will capitulate to them.
Yesterday's tragic murders have a particular signifi-cance, insofar as the victims were two men who have done much to make Northern Ireland a safer place. South Armagh is often described as bandit country. Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan were working in co-operation with the Garda Siochana to remove that unwanted label from that part of the Province.
Will the Secretary of State assure us that this work will not be abandoned? In fact, the tragic incidents yesterday underline even more the need for positive co-operation between the RUC and the Garda Siochana. I assure the Secretary of State that we share his view that it is the duty of everyone, particularly Members of this House, to co-operate with the security forces on both sides of the border to put a stop to the killing, and that any information they have should be given to the appropriate authority. I join him in welcoming the helpful statement made by the Taoiseach.
Finally, may I put a number of specific points to the Secretary of State. Will he give the House an indication of how security matters will now be conducted to ease the fears of people in all parts of Northern Ireland, but particularly in South Armagh and north Belfast, where there has been a particularly vile set of sectarian murders over the past few weeks?
The right hon. Gentleman may not be in a position to answer my two final points, as his statement seemed to indicate that the clearance operation is not complete, but there has been a degree of speculation. Will he indicate why the car and the incident were not observed from border observation posts, and secondly, in view of what has been reported in some papers, is he able to indicate to the House whether there were any documents of a security nature in the car which are missing?

Mr. King: I thank the hon. Member first of all for the very forthright statement he made on behalf of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends in their firm stand against terrorism and the evils that these murders represent. He is right to say that many live in fear in South Armagh, not just of the evil of the terrorist but of the gangster and the smuggler; all the criminality there undoubtedly brings terror to many people.
The hon. Member is right to pay tribute to the work of those officers, and indeed those working with them, in

co-operation with the Garda Siochana, to try and lift the burden of fear which exists in that part of Ireland on both sides of the border. I am grateful to him for what he said on that, and I confirm to him that that work will certainly continue and be reinforced.
In respect of the fears which exist, with this nasty and very vicious outbreak of sectarian killing, I had a meeting yesterday morning with the deputy Chief Constable. The RUC is taking a number of steps to ensure that its success in bringing a number of people to the courts is continued. We are certainly giving that aspect a very high priority indeed.
I am afraid that I cannot satisfy the hon. Member on his last points in respect of observation and documents. I have referred the incident to a full investigation and I would rather not comment further until more facts are available.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Having known both officers personally, I add my sympathy and that of my hon. Friends to what has already been said.
Does the Secretary of State agree, that as Parliament has required such men to engage in such consultations and meetings, hon. Members now have a duty to review that requirement? Is it necessary to meet in Dundalk, of all places? It is generally recognised to be the garrison town and operational base of the IRA. If such meetings and consultations serve any useful purpose, would it not be safer to meet here in London? After all, it is only 50 minutes' flying time away for both forces.

Mr. King: I express my appreciation for the right hon. Gentleman's opening words. Several hon. Members knew both officers concerned, and the matter becomes all the more tragic, although every death and every murder is a tragedy. That is why I was anxious to take note of the recent tragedies in Northern Ireland.
I profoundly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's second remark. Parliament has not required officers of the RUC to meet officers of the Garda Siochana. Those officers act under the independent operational responsibility of the Chief Constable. If the suggestion is that the officers of the RUC are doing things that they do not believe to be right in terms of cross-border co-operation —the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) mentioned something similar on the radio today—it is an unfortunate line to take. It is unfair to senior officers of the RUC. No serious observer of the security scene in the island of Ireland does not recognise that one is more likely to have an effective response to the terrorist challenge by close co-operation between senior officers in the Garda Siochana and the RUC. That co-operation is essential.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to read the recently published report of the Chief Constable of the RUC, in which he talks about the growing trust and co-operation, which bodes well for the future between the RUC and the Garda.
On the right hon. Gentleman's serious point about the problems of meetings, clearly it is desirable that officers meet and work face to face and co-operate. Those issues will be part of the consideration. The right hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not comment further on them at this time.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I join with the Secretary of State and others in expressing sympathy to those who have been bereaved by the foul and callous


shooting of two highly respected and senior police officers at the border yesterday. All hon. Members will do all within their power to ensure that nothing that they say will make more difficult the task of the security forces.
Will the Secretary of State find out where the IRA got the information in relation to this crime? It is well known that Dundalk has a heavy concentration of active IRA cells and that little goes on within Dundalk that the IRA is not aware of. Information will flow freely about people who would not normally be present in the town. Therefore, was it a wise decision for it to be the meeting place of such senior officers?
Does the Secretary of State accept that there is growing concern in Northern Ireland not just about the recent shootings but the long series of sectarian tit-for-tat killings? The present security policy is not dealing with the situation, and something more must be done. Will he pursue a more rigorous and resolute security initiative against the terrorists, rather than simply react to what terrorists do?

Mr. King: Any security policy needs the support of all people of good will within the community and their determination to stand against terrorism. No security policy can be perfect against the pure hatred for a Catholic or vice versa, by a man with a gun who will be determined to go out and kill anybody, not caring who it may be. The only way that that can be met is by the whole community standing together—every person being determined to see those killings stop, and being prepared to help the police and the security forces with any information whatever that may bring those people to justice. The impression that committing a murder is somehow a victory for one's "side", if I can put it in the most obscene and simplistic style, will have the effect, in the currency of Northern Ireland, that there will be retaliation, and it will inflict tragedy on the other "side" as well.
That is the message. I hope that all hon. Members, and not just those Members elected to represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, can stand together and make everybody appreciate the vital need to stand against the particularly poisonous and vicious challenge that we face in Northern Ireland.
On the point about Dundalk as a suitable meeting place, I have heard comments about some of the activities there and I do not propose to comment on them further today. These are decisions taken by police officers. Such matters will need to be considered in the light of these terrible events. The hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I do not comment on them further this afternoon.

Mr. Eddie McCrady: I and my party colleagues wish to join in the extension of sympathy to Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan, whose remit and authority extended to the part of South Down that I represent. I express our deepest sympathies to their families. I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) who yesterday called upon the whole community to give every support and help to the police in securing these barbarous killers. I endorse and reiterate that statement this afternoon.
I ask the Secretary of State, in the course of his investigations into this horrific and unwarranted crime, to take cognisance of the fact that the scene of the murder,

the Edenappa road, is probably the most secure road in western Europe. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, (Mr. McNamara) said, there are many watch towers and security checks in that area. The Secretary of State will need to inquire how this type of event could Occur.
I also join the Secretary of State in extending sympathy to the families of those who have been murdered, almost on a daily basis, simply because of the faith that they hold dear. That is happening nowhere near the border, but mainly in north Belfast. It has nothing to do with the so-called "bandit country". It is most unfortunate for the many law-abiding, good, honest ordinary people in South Armagh especially, and in Newry who have to suffer the stigma of being referred to as the bandits of bandit country. We should drop that phrase entirely from our vocabulary.

Mr. Roy Beggs: When they give up their terrorists in Armagh.

Mr. McGrady: We have, of course, the repeating record of the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) who is trying to exacerbate a delicate and dangerous situation.
In conclusion, may I personally and on behalf of my colleagues again extend our sympathy, and call upon the entire community—both communities in Northern Ireland —fully to support the police investigations.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for his general comments. Could I draw upon both his concluding remarks and those made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, (Mr. Mallon) who was the first I heard to comment on this event, as it occurred in his constituency. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh made an unqualified and unequivocal call to all members of the community who had any information available to help the police to bring to justice those responsible for these appalling outrages. I was glad to hear that categorical statement by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that it will be heeded and that all people, from whatever part of the community they come, will realise that murder and killing in Northern Ireland is destroying not only the prospects for young people for a better society, but it is destroying the prospects for everybody in the island of Ireland. That is why all people need to stand together and help the police to suppress this.

Mr. James Kilfedder: This latest atrocity has taken place on the 20th anniversary of the present IRA campaign of terrorism in Northern Ireland, which is a long time for any people to suffer. Surely in addition to expressing its sympathy, which I do to the relatives of those two police officers, the House should also express in some tangible way its recognition of the gallantry and dedication of the Royal Ulster Constabulary which, together with the armed forces, has had to hold the line in Northern Ireland.
There is no hope for Northern Ireland while the atrocities continue. I am referring both to those perpetrated by the IRA and the equally dastardly tit-for-tat murders that have taken place over the years. Can the Secretary of State give some hope to the people of Northern Ireland, perhaps along the lines of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who said that the IRA should be extirpated? Now, in this 20th year, will he not say that attempts will be made to boot out and destroy those evil


men and, to do that, will he now promise all possible funds to the RUC to make sure that it has the equipment, including helicopters, to deal with the men of violence?

Mr. King: I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in his tribute to the gallantry of the RUC and the security forces for the way in which they stand in the front line against terrorism. However, I do not stand with him about there being no hope for Northern Ireland. One of the most inspiring things that I have seen during the time when I have had the honour to be the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been the way so many people triumph over all the disadvantages and the problems, and to see the advances that have been made in the economic life and the improvement that there has been in the quality of life in Northern Ireland. It is a confirmation that the spirit of the people will rise above the threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Yes, we are determined to root it out and if it cheers him I can tell him that I endorsed the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the day after he made them although as I did so on the "The Late Late Show" on Radio Tele fis Eireann he may not have heard me. I made it clear that I fully support those needs.
However, there are those whom arguments simply do not reach and they must be rooted out and brought before the courts and, if guilty, they must be sentenced and put in places where they are no longer a threat to society. There is no question about that. From whichever extreme they come, they must recognise that that is the action that must be taken.
In recognising the gallantry of the RUC, I recognise also the gallantry of all the people of Northern Ireland for the way in which they have progressed, as they have, against all the difficulties and the setbacks that they have faced.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Secretary of State aware that all hon. Members appreciate what he has just said and that we are concerned for all the people of Northern Ireland and that although we are also concerned about the murders of the policemen because the RUC bears the brunt, we recognise that there have been sectarian murders on both sides of the divide? The terrible thing is that they will continue. Somehow they run their course and then stop, and no words from anybody here will stop them. The people of Northern Ireland have heard such words too often from the Secretary of State, myself and other people, but how one feels for the people of Northern Ireland.
I want to ask only one question—that is the only reason I rose. In South Armagh, with all the problems and difficulties along the border, are the Irish Government still not interested in the two armies down there—not anywhere else—working together directly, because it is not enough for the RUC alone to cover the border? That would not solve the problem, but it would ease it.

Mr. King: I shall not attempt to qualify the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks because obviously I respect very much his knowledge and experience. I understand that he has every reason to believe that he is right to talk about the cycles of sectarian killings and the need for the security forces and the police to be as vigilant as possible to try to ensure that that cycle stops at the earliest possible moment.
On the issue of co-operation in South Armagh, there are problems in the approach that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. He will recognise that the tragedy of the particular outrage that we are discussing is, in a sense, symbolic of very much closer co-operation, which I hope and believe will develop. From all my meetings, not least with the commissioner of the Garda, and from all that I know of the relationship that has developed between the senior ranks of the Garda and the senior ranks of the RUC, nothing could have done more to reinforce the resolve to deal with the terrorists in the island of Ireland. The outrage that the IRA committed yesterday is the clearest possible symbol of the challenge that the police forces face, and it will reinforce their determination to work together to achieve what everybody in the island of Ireland wants—the end of terrorism.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to repeat that we have a guillotine motion and a ten-minute Bill motion today. I shall take two more questions from either side, and then we must move on.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is great disquiet and fear in many hearts in the Province at this time, not only because of the tragic murder of the two senior police officers but because of the sectarian murders that have been taking place throughout the Province? Does he appreciate that it is difficult for the people of Northern Ireland to understand how two senior officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary were permitted to go into the heart of Dundalk, which is known as the lion's den, to talk about security matters, when, on the walls of every police station in the Province, there are numerous photographs with the words, "Now residing in Dundalk, Republic of Ireland"?
Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether those officers were guarded during their stay in the Irish Republic, whether they were left to the border still guarded by the Garda, and whether they were to be met at the border by officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? I ask those questions because it is known that the officers were to go to another location, but did not turn up. At what time did they leave the meeting in Dundalk, and who knew the route that they were to take? The people of the Province believe that those are vital questions that must be answered.

Mr. King: I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments about the disquiet and fear in Northern Ireland. It is incumbent on us all to exercise great care over the statements that we make, so that we may avoid stirring up fear or hatred, which is so easily done in the present atmosphere. Whatever the tensions, whatever the pressures, whatever the emotional difficulties that any hon. Member must have faced, we have a heavy responsiblity at this time. The questions that the hon. Gentleman has asked are all relevant, and they will undoubtedly be addressed in the investigation. He will understand if I do not go further at this stage.

Mr. David Alton: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, may I extend sympathy to the families of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan, and may I extend to the Secretary of State support for the actions that he has taken following the terrible and pointless murder yesterday.
Does not this underline yet again the necessity for the Garda and the RUC to continue the strongest possible, the most unequivocal, co-operation? Is not this what the IRA fears more than anything else? Does not the incident underline the need for the minority community in Northern Ireland to recognise that, as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, it has to extend unequivocal support to the RUC and that, in due course, that should involve members of that community joining and working in the RUC?

Mr. King: I thank the hon. Member, and I agree very much with what he has just said. Certainly, the fight against terrorism must be reinforced by better co-operation between the Garda and the RUC. We must all stand together against the evils of terrorism. I do not know whether the House is aware of the fact that at this very minute the Taoiseach is making a statement in the Dail about the murder of three Irish soldiers who were serving with UNIFIL. I understand that they were blown up by a land mine yesterday. Countries must co-operate in the fight against terrorism and in the fight to maintain the peace. Every community must give full support to the security forces in their efforts to protect the community against terrorism.

Mr. W. Benyon: Given the shock of these appalling murders, is it not significant that the IRA continually shows its fear about the success of Anglo-Irish co-operation and does its best to discredit it?

Mr. King: Whatever other views are held of the Anglo-Irish Agreement—I understand points of principle which come from the entirely different perspective, which I respect—there is absolutely no question, and never has been, but that the IRA fears closer co-operation between the Irish and the British Governments. Obviously, that is a threat to the activities of the IRA. Whatever their views about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, no serious observers of the scene doubt the need for there to be closer security co-operation between the Irish and British police forces —the RUC and the Garda Siochana.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: May I join other hon. Members who have expressed regret at the deaths of two fine and gallant members of the RUC, whom I knew personally and who were courageous and courteous in their duty.
The Secretary of State's words going back to the people whom we represent will appear to be but a weak echo of all the platitudes and clichùs that we have heard over the years about many tragedies such as this. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that I have in my hand a file more than 2 in thick, recording the details of 254 people who have died in Northern Ireland since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed? Will he acknowledge without equivocation that the present rate of killing in Northern Ireland is running at a figure close to 100 per annum, which is exactly twice the rate in the year before the agreement was signed?
May I ask the Secretary of State and other hon. Members to be careful when they use the word "sectarian" because it seems to excuse certain other murders? Like my colleagues, I totally abhor the sectarian killings which have occurred and which are on the increase. Will the Secretary

of State acknowledge that of the 87 Roman Catholic victims who have been killed since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, 45 per cent. were killed by the IRA, while 54 per cent. were killed by loyalists? Will he acknowledge that of the 167 Protestant victims, 92 per cent. were killed by the IRA and 7 per cent. by loyalists? Will he be careful in using the word "sectarian" not to suggest that it is one-way traffic but rather acknowledge that the vast amount of killing where the IRA predominates is also sectarian?

Mr. King: In the first points he made the hon. Gentleman referred to some 250 people having been killed since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. If I followed him correctly, the implication was that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was somehow responsible for those murders, leaving out the 2,250 who were killed in the years before the agreement was signed. He might have been more honest if he had given the House all the figures.
He might also have told the House the date when the Libyans probably started to ship the Semtex, the machine guns and the other weapons of death and destruction—which was significantly before the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement—therefore leaving no one who is prepared to study the matters objectively in any doubt that the IRA campaign that we now face, and that is a threat against which we all have to stand, was planned some time before that, and that these weapons are being used to try to destroy co-operation and to try to ensure that terrorism will win within the island of Ireland. It is our determination not to make political points but to make sure that everybody in the community, the security forces and the Garda Siochana, works together in the most effective way to defeat the evil terrorist ends.

Mr. Speaker: Despite what I said a moment ago, I have just been told that the two police officers were the constituents of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker). I shall, therefore, call him and welcome him back to the House. I hope that his health is improving.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that it was not us who claimed that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would bring peace, stability and reconciliation? None of us for one moment suggested that it is responsible for the violence. However, the hope was held out to our people that the agreement would bring a change. Will the Secretary of State also bear in mind that, despite the exhortation of the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) for information, despite his best endeavours and despite the promises of Charlie Haughey, the experience of the past 15 years shows that the chances of bringing the people responsible for this crime to justice are negligible? That is why South Armagh was described as bandit country by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I believe that he did old-fashioned banditry an injustice, because that is not a word to describe the foul activities of the people who over the past 15 years have engaged in far worse crimes in South Armagh than this one. I speak as its Member of Parliament for the past 10 years.
That being the case, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether those two policemen were armed. If they were not, why not? Were they murdered by a shot in each of their heads when their car was moving or were they stopped at a road block? Were terrorists able to go up to


their car, open the door and murder the two of them without them being able to do anything? Is it not asking too much of me and certain people whom I represent to believe that after 20 years incidents like this can still occur?

Mr. King: I respect the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman and his sad experiences at some of the outrages in the past, not least in South Armagh. His illustrations, and those in the newspapers this morning, suggest that there were some terrorists hiding behind a stone wall who fired machine guns when the car went by. I do not know the facts. The hon. Gentleman has given two fairly emotive speculations with considerable implications, which could be intepreted in different ways by different people. I say quite candidly to the hon. Gentleman and the House that we do not know precisely where or how the incident occurred. That is now the subject of an investigation.
The Irish Cabinet met this morning and the commissioner of the Garda has been specifically instructed by the Cabinet to take personal responsibility for its part of the investigation. The commissioner contacted the Chief Constable first thing this morning. The incident will be the subject of a thorough investigation in which I confidently believe that nothing will be held back between the police forces on either side to discover how it happened and to do everything possible to bring the perpetrators to justice.
That is the seriousness with which the Taoiseach has carried forward his pledge of last night into the Cabinet meeting and with a further statement this morning. I have given my assurance of complete co-operation in the investigation. It is important that we now consider the facts. I believe that we all have a duty not to speculate on what might have happened, some of which speculation will be quite emotive and deeply distressing to many people.

Empty Property and Community Aid

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities to take steps to identify empty houses and to put them to good use.
Just 12 months ago, I introduced a similar Bill in an attempt to ensure maximum use of housing accommoda-tion available in both public and private sectors. In view of the number of homeless families in this country, it was disappointing and unfortunate that that Bill did not receive a Second Reading. It was disappointing and unfortunate, too, that the Government's proposed amendments last year to cover the proposals in my Bill relative to local authority dwellings were ruled to be outside the scope of the Governments' own Housing Bill.
Since then the problem of homelessness has continued to increase. In 1988, 116,060 households in England were classed as homeless—a 3 per cent. increase on the previous year and more than double the total recorded in 1978, when the homeless persons legislation came into effect.
I received a letter yesterday from the chairman of the development committee of the Catholic Housing Aid Society. Lord Hylton wrote:
Over the past few months we have become increasingly concerned with our capacity to cope with the growing number of homeless people and families. It is a massive task and we are now receiving an average of 115 calls for assistance every day from different parts of the country.
In 1988, more homeless households were placed in bed and breakfast and emergency accommodation than ever before. That is an unsatisfactory and expensive way of trying to deal with the problem of homelessness. A situation in which so many people are homeless is bad enough, but when there are more empty properties than homeless households it is ludicrous and scandalous.
In 1987, there were 707,294 empty dwellings in England alone. I accept that even if all the empty properties were brought back into use, the problem of homelessness would not be totally solved. Many properties are the wrong size and in the wrong place, but empty properties in areas of housing need where there is an unmet demand for housing are a wasted resource.
This Bill has one aim—to ensure the maximum use of houses that are left empty, often for many years. The mere existence of such a large number of empty properties—I have given the figures—despite continued public concern, is evidence enough that a new initiative is needed. This measure gives us an opportunity to act. If, by implementing the proposals, we were able to help only those people living in bed and breakfast accommodation, where family life is impossible, the Bill would be worthwhile and justified, but the proposals go further than that. The Bill attempts also to deal with properties allowed to lie empty and derelict for many years, abandoned by their owners and causing worry, distress, danger and financial loss to those unfortunate enough to live near them. All hon. Members have examples of derelict properties in their constituencies. In mine, there is a serious problem with empty properties—in Rishton, Oswaldtwistle and Accrington—properties which it some cases have been empty for more than 30 years. Efforts to have the properties improved have not been successful and


short of using compulsory purchase orders, the local authority has little power to act and a great deal of staff time is wasted.
The Bill would require local authorities to register all empty residential property and to provide the Secretary of State for the Environment with an annual statement of their strategy for bringing back into use any empty properties that they own. It would oblige councils to allow community groups, such as housing associations and other voluntary bodies, to use empty properties in council possession for housing homeless families unless the council could show good reason why the properties were empty. It would allow local authorities to guarantee loans made by building societies to enable empty houses to be repaired, the loans being repaid by the occupants as though they were rent or mortgage payments.
The Bill would give councils a new power, similar to the control order provision in the Housing Act 1964, to put empty property use orders on long-term empty properties. That would allow local authorities working, for example, with housing associations to make use of such properties to house homeless people for up to five years if the owner of the property could not show good reason why the property was empty. Private owners whose property was brought back into use by means of an empty property use order would benefit in real terms with the passage of years by the material improvement to their property, particularly as building society funds would be used substantially to improve the property.
The power to use empty property use orders on empty properties is a lesser power than already exists. At present, councils use compulsory purchase orders, which allow the expropriation of properties by the council for ever. Empty property use orders would permit local authorities to use houses for up to five years only, returning them to the owners in better condition than before. It is, therefore, a less extreme measure than a compulsory purchase order. It is a less drastic and more flexible weapon with which to counter the problems often caused by empty properties and, because it is used at a much earlier stage, it will result in the saving of houses before they become derelict and often beyond repair.
The Bill has wide support from local authorities and hon. Members across the political spectrum. With more than 700,000 properties empty in England alone and so many people homeless, there is an urgent need for action. The Bill would give homes and hope to many people now homeless and it would make a real contribution to reducing the eyesores that we see in our towns and cities. Its provisions would benefit not only the homeless but neighbours, residents and ratepayers. I hope that the House will support it as a small step forward in dealing with the major and growing problems of homelessness and derelict property.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. Teddy Taylor, Mr. Bowen Wells, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. Clive Soley, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Ms. Joan Ruddock, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. David Alton and Mr. Simon Hughes.

EMPTY PROPERTY AND COMMUNITY AID

Mr. Ken Hargreaves accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities to take steps to identify empty houses and to put them to good use; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 May and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

WATER BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Resolved,
That the Reports [13th and 20th March] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolutions, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 ( Business Committee) and agreed to.
Following is the Report—[20 March]—of the Business Committee:
Water Bill (Business Committee),—The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means reported from the Business Committee, That it had come to a Resolution in respect of the Water Bill, which it had directed him to report to the House:
That the Resolution of the Business Committee of 13th March be varied as follows—
The allotted days which under the Order of 6th February are given to the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.


TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
New clause 8
5.30 pm



Remaining Government New Clauses
7.00 pm



Remaining New Clauses
11.00 pm



Amendments up to the end of Clauses 6
Midnight


Second day
Amendments up to the end of Clauses 9
6.00 pm



Amendments up to the end of Clauses 98
10.30 pm



Amendments up to the end of Clauses 119
11.15 pm



Amendments up to the end of Clauses 162
Midnight


Third day
Amendments up to the end of Clauses 183
5.30 pm



Remaining proceedings on Consideration
6.00 pm



Third Reading
10.00 pm

Orders of the Day — Water Bill

1ST ALLOTTED DAY

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 8

ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR WALES

.—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish and maintain a committee for advising him with respect to matters affecting or otherwise connected with the carrying out in Wales of the Authority's functions by virtue of this Act.

(2) The committee established and maintained under this section—

(a) shall consist of such persons as may be appointed by the Secretary of State; and
(b) shall meet at least once a year.

(3) The Secretary of State shall, out of money provided by Parliament, pay to the members of the committee established and maintained under this section such sums reimbursing them for loss of remuneration, for travelling expenses and for other out-of-pocket expenses as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine.'. —[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take sub-amendment (a), in line 3, leave out 'Authority's function by virtue' and insert 'provisions'.
Sub-amendment (b), leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert 'shall comprise

(a) representatives of local authorities in Wales;
(b) the chairman of fisheries, drainage and recreation committees in Wales; and
(c) representatives of such consumer, environmental and recreational organisations as the Secretary of State may consider to be affected.'.

Sub-amendment (c), in line 7, at end insert—
'(2A) It shall be the duty of the Authority, or of any undertaker to supply such information to the Committee as it may reasonably request, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State'.
Sub-amendment (d), in line 11, at end insert—
'(3A) The Secretary of State may confer on the Committee the duty to carry out any function exercisable by him by virtue of this Act.'.
Government amendment 9, in clause 2, page 3, line 14, at end insert
'and it shall be the duty of the Authority in determining the regions for which advisory committees are established and maintained to ensure that one of those regions consists wholly or mainly of or of most of Wales'.
and sub-amendment (a), leave out 'or mainly of or of most';
Government amendment 10, in clause 136, page 139, line 15, at end insert—
'and it shall be the duty of the Authority in determining the regions for which regional advisory committees are established and maintained to ensure that one of those regions consists (apart from territorial waters) wholly or mainly of or of most of Wales.'.
and sub-amendment (a) leave out 'or mainly of or of most'.

Mr. Roberts: New clause 8 establishes on the face of the Bill the advisory committee for Wales, which will be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

for Wales to advise him on matters relating to the policies and activities of the National Rivers Authority that impinge upon and affect Wales as a whole.
The advisory committee will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Wales. It is his intention that it will be chaired by his appointee to the NRA. It should include the chairmen of the three regional committees serving the NRA region based on Welsh Water's area and the chairman of the regional rivers advisory committee for the area based on Severn-Trent's area. It should also have one or more independent members.
Hon. Members may well ask why we have not specified named posts in the Bill. The main reason is that to do so would be very restrictive. For example, the occupier of a specific post might not be able to serve on the committee; there might be time constraints or the additional workload might be more than a particular individual could incur. There could be any number of reasons why individuals in maintained posts could not serve.
This is an important committee with a vital role in ensuring that the Secretary of State for Wales is kept fully informed, and obtains a Welsh view, of NRA policies that affect Wales and of the needs of the NRA, if Welsh requirements are to be met. Its remit will extend to Wales as a whole and not just the area of the Welsh water authority. Its success will depend crucially on the calibre of those appointed, the advice they give and the way in which this advice plays its part in developing or influencing NRA policies in Wales. It can be only an advisory committee. The executive powers must lie with the NRA. But the Secretary of State for Wales can and will use the advice given to guide his own actions in relation to NRA matters. Whether the committee is statutory or not is really incidental to its ability to be a success. Nevertheless, in deciding to establish the committee we kept an open mind upon whether it should be statutory. We have listened carefully to the arguments put both inside and outside the House.
I was particularly impressed by the words of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), when he said:


There is a pressing need for the advisory committee in Wales to be on a statutory basis. It is either important or it is not."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 2 March 1989; c. 1478.]
We have made our assessment of the advantages of having a statutory base for the committee and this new clause, which I commend to the House, is the result.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has presented the advisory committee as some sort of concession by the Government to the demands and the weight of argument by the Opposition. This is on a par with the comment of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) when, in Committee on 10 January, he accused me of pulling the special committee like a rabbit out of a hat. But, as I have said, when we decided that there should be a National Rivers Authority we immediately recognised and acknowledged that there would be a difference between the regional structure of the authority and the territorial responsibilities of the Secretary of State. This was why, when we produced our policy paper in December 1987, we set out the need for an advisory committee and our views on its membership. All this has been promulgated and in full view for 16 months and cannot be regarded, even in a flight of fancy, as a concession to Opposition pressure. That policy document stated:
Response to the consultation paper did not indicate the need for a separate NRA in Wales. Nevertheless, a special committee will be formed to advise the Secretary of State for Wales on Welsh issues. This committee will be chaired by the Secretary of State for Wales's appointee to the NRA and its membership will include the chairmen of the Regional Rivers Advisory Committee, the Regional Fisheries Advisory Committee and the Regional Flood Defence Committee.
We spent some time in Committee on the powers and duties of the Secretary of State for Wales and on how the needs and interests of Wales were to be looked after by the provisions of this Bill. I think I ought to make the position clear once again.
In Committee my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning explained clearly and simply the general constitutional position that the phrase "Secretary of State" is defined as one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State and that powers are allocated to particular Ministers on an administrative basis. In a further effort I produced for the Committee a digest of the powers of the Secretary of State for Wales which set out precisely what those powers were; but for the benefit of the House let me state emphatically once more that the Secretary of State for Wales retains his responsibilities for the water industry in Wales under this Bill. The Secretary of State for Wales will share responsibility for the NRA; he will jointly appoint the Director General of Water Services; he will appoint water and sewerage undertakers in the present area of the Welsh water authority; he will be reponsible for the enforcement functions related to those undertakers; he will be responsible for matters related to pollution control, to water resources and to water quality in Wales; he will be reponsible, as now, for land drainage and fisheries matters in the area of the Welsh water authority.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is at present cataloguing the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales, and of courses those responsibilities currently exist anyway. Can he confirm that up to the

present time the Secretary of State for Wales has not submitted to Brussels any plans whatsoever to meet the directives on bathing water quality and tap water quality, despite reports to the contrary in the press? Does the Minister think that this shows how slow the Government have been in meeting the demands of these directives?

5 pm

Mr. Roberts: As the hon. Gentleman must realise, there is some misunderstanding. We are in continual contact with Brussels about the bathing directive and the water policy directive—as it has been in the past, so it will be in the future.
Let me also set out——

Mr. Keith Raffan: rose——

Mr. Roberts: Time is short and I am aware that hon. Members want to speak.
Let me also set out the position with regard to the National Rivers Authority in Wales. Initially there will be two NRA regions which will include parts of Wales, each of which will have a regional rivers advisory committee, a regional fisheries advisory committee and a regional flood defence committee. We shall introduce amendments to clauses 2 and 136 to ensure, subject to the approval of the House, that the area served by one of the regional rivers advisory committees and one of the regional fisheries advisory committees will consist of the whole, or most, of Wales.
The NRA will not be a monolithic centralised organisation. It will be an organisation with a small central policy unit and the vast majority of its staff in the regions. The central unit will consist of some 50 to 60 staff but there will be about 660 in the area of Welsh Water alone. The industry with which we are dealing is one in which local knowledge is vital; it must in all its operations have particular regard to local differences. If it is to be an effective organisation the strength of the NRA must be in the regions.
The regional committee structure will help to ensure that that is so. The regional rivers advisory committee, regional fisheries advisory committee and regional flood defence committee in each region will be made up of members with local knowledge and experience. In the regions, the executive decisions of the NRA will be implemented based on the advice, knowledge and experience of its locally based staff and of the members of various committees. It is in the regions that the needs and resources required will be identified, and it is in the regions that the main activities will take place.
When we set out our policy for a National Rivers Authority we considered the need for a separate Welsh rivers authority. We decided against it, because there are two ways of providing a Welsh rivers authority. On the one hand, it means maintaining something akin to the present water authority areas. This has the advantage of preserving river basin management but would mean that the Welsh area, if based on the present Welsh water authority area, would include considerable parts of England and exclude considerable parts of Wales.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Historically, that is quite acceptable.

Mr. Roberts: It is not acceptable.
The alternative is to establish a Welsh rivers authority whose area is conterminous with Wales. There is only one


difficulty with this, which is that rivers do not follow administrative boundaries, and to have Welsh and English authorities on that basis would cut right across the principle of river basin management, which I understood that we all—on both sides of the House—agreed was important.
However, in proposing a National Rivers Authority we recognised and acknowledged immediately that there would be a difference between the regional structure of the authority, and the territorial responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales. That is why we have proposed that there should be a special committee to advise the Secretary of State for Wales on NRA matters related to Wales as a whole—to his territorial responsibilities—and why we are proposing that it should be statutory.

Mr. Alun Michael: One of the most telling comments on a Welsh pupil's school report is "Gwnaeth eu orau". I could say the same to the Minister for his totally inadequate contribution this afternoon.
Given the way in which Ministers have lost every argument and conceded nothing in Committee, we should be thankful for small mercies today. At least the Minister has conceded that, if it is to mean anything at all, the special committee offered to us needs to be in the Bill, as I told him weeks ago. He rejected that out of hand in Committee. I suspect that the real reason for this concession is to enable him to pay his nominees' expenses for attending, not because he has suddenly come to share our belief that the water industry in Wales needs proper and careful oversight.
The Secretary of State's new clause has two functions. It establishes a committee and allows the members to receive expenses. As it stands, it is a toothless corgi with permanent laryngitis. The Secretary of State could appoint three or four failed Conservative candidates—of which there are quite a few in Wales—and provided that they met once a year no more need be heard from them. The Secretary of State does not need to heed or even to acknowledge their advice. With the chaos that surrounds his Welsh language board, we can understand his reluctance to leave himself open to more advice. Nevertheless, he cannot be allowed to get away with such a meaningless gesture.
Our amendments do the Secretary of State a favour. They give content to his packaging exercise and reality to the promised committee. They introduce representation, accountability and access of information to the committee. They make it mean something, although I stress that it will not be ideal.
The one factor in the Bill that we have welcomed is the rivers authority, but we should like the Government to forget their privatisation exercise, concentrate on the rivers authority, set up a separate Welsh rivers authority—against which the Minister has completely failed to make an adequate case—and strengthen the powers and resources of those two authorities so that they can perform a proper job. Even at this late stage, I appeal to the Minister and to the Secretary of State to reconsider and do just that. If they will not, let them at least provide us with a committee in Wales that can advise them properly and satisfy the Welsh people that, in future, the water industry will come under full and proper scrutiny.
Our amendments are modest, reasonable, and yet vital if the special Welsh committee is to play a real and positive role. Amendment (a) aims to broaden the advice available to the Secretary of State from the scope of the rivers authority to all the Bill's provisions. Amendment (b) suggests that representatives of local authorities, the chairman of the three vital committees—fisheries, drainage and recreation—and the consumer, environ-mental and recreational organisations, to be selected by the Secretary of State, should be on the committee. That is the very minimum needed to create a meaningful committee to advise the Secretary of State.
Our amendments also give the committee power to obtain information—without which, what kind of advice can be made available? Finally, they enable the Secretary of State to give greater meaning to the committee by delegating to it some of his powers.
Accepting those amendments would give some teeth to the committee, as stated in the proposed new clause. In the weeks in Standing Committee, there have been literally hundreds of examples of areas of concern on which scrutiny and public reassurance is necessary. The function of the National Rivers Authority is important, but so are matters such as health, water supply quality and consumer interest.
The Minister should accept with delight and relief the advice on all these topics offered by our amendments. Due to the constriction of the guillotine on this set of amendments, I do not have time to dwell as I should like on these individual matters. I shall give just a couple of brief examples of where public scrutiny, followed by considered advice given to the Secretary of State, would be of great benefit.
Yesterday, the Western Mail reported public concern about the increase in the rat population in Wales. Experts partly blame warm weather but also the poor state of sewers—which allow the creatures to escape—and the reduction of expensive sewer-baiting programmes carried out by water authorities, which are currently under the privatisation spotlight. That matter should come under proper scrutiny and the Secretary of State should obtain advice on it.
We could hark back to the comments in The Times in 1875, where the quality of drinking water was referred to in detail as
in every case unutterably disgusting".
When the Secretary of State for Wales sits in Gwdyr house contemplating his next press release or planning a foray into Wales for the next stage in his packaging initiative, he sits just where the 19th century reformers, Edwin Chadwick, sat to plan the clean-up of the private water industry to end the scandal of disease and dirt created by the then private water industry. Against his earlier instincts, Chadwick came to realise that action to bring water into the public sector was the only way to achieve a clean-up and protect the public. Why will not the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales learn the lesson of history? Why will they not listen to the ghosts that probably inhabit their studies in Gwdyr house? The price to be paid if they fail to learn those lessons will be a repetition of past mistakes, and it is the people of Wales who will pay that price.
A former colleague of the Minister, Mrs. Sally Oppenheim-Barnes, referred to the importance of consumer protection in the privatised industry. She said:


until it is adequately regulated, simply moving a monopoly from the public to the private sector does little or nothing for its consumers … Robust regulation of the privatised industry will be needed if consumers are not to be faced with rising prices and falling standards.
We say, "hear, hear" to that. In Committee we have asked for a wide range of protection for consumers—fair prices, guaranteed supply, adequate water quality, a say for consumers, the right to public information and a guarantee of emergency cover. Let us at least ensure that the Secretary of State is given well-informed advice on each of those matters.
We have also commented on bathing directives and water quality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) pointed out, the Minister fails to listen to what the European Commission tells him during what he describes as regular contacts, and fails to meet its requirements. The advisory committee ought to have information on such matters and to be able to advise the Secretary of State for Wales.
The NRA's responsibilities are manifold. I cannot dwell on them in detail, but one concern that has been referred to is the consequence of privatisation for conservation, recreation and public access to land currently owned by the water authorities. The Bill imposes on the NRA and water sewerage undertakings general environmental and recreational duties, including the duty to have regard to conservation and public rights of access. The code of practice, however, shows the duties imposed on the water authority to be operative only
so far as may be consistent with the purpose of any enactments relating to the functions of that body".
The subsidiary nature of those duties, particularly in relation to those imposed in clause 6—which establishes a duty to "promote economy and efficiency"—continues to call into question the extent to which the new water bodies will be committed to conservation and recreation in a privatised economy.
We have called on the Government to strengthen the control of pollution, discharges and obstructions, to provide adequate public funding for water bailiffing and to act on many other aspects affecting the environment, anglers and so forth. Again, as the Bill's provisions are weak, scrutiny and good advice become all the more important. Representation of all the relevant interests on the advisory committee, which we recommend, is not merely incidental but essential to the proper administra-tion of the Bill in Wales.
I have spoken on a range of issues in a few minutes, but each of the sentences that I have uttered could have been greatly expanded. The Minister knows that we have already drawn these matters to his attention in Committee and that he has continually failed to respond. I ask him to listen to the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), who said the other week that the privatisation measure was
as intensely and deservedly unpopular in Wales as it has ever been".—[Official Report, 1 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 316.]
If the Secretary of State for Wales will not heed the warnings that have come from the Conservative Benches —as well as from elsewhere—and exclude Wales from the Bill, and if he will not give us our own rivers authority, let him at least ensure proper public scrutiny and accept reasonable advice.
The Opposition believe that water privatisation will do nothing positive for the environment or for the consumer in Wales. In the amendments, we have sought the minimum improvement of the establishment of a separate Welsh rivers authority, and asked for a consumers' charter to be written into the Bill. Failing that, let the Minister at least accept the amendments, recognising that they represent a modest, constructive and positive proposal which will be welcomed in Wales and which he should accept if he has the slightest concern for protecting Welsh interests and the slightest intention of setting up a committee that will mean or do anything.

Mr. Raffan: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who is the only Member of the House who speaks faster than I do. I only wish that he made as much sense.
I welcome new clause 8. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out, it was foreshadowed in the Government's policy document on the NRA, which totally undermines claims by the hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) that this is some kind of concession. We know that they are desperate to claim that such a concession, any concession, has been made, having been so severely worsted throughout the Committee stage: they must have something to show for the hours that they put in. We nearly had to call in the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Opposition Front Bench Spokesmen, so regularly were the arguments of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth "pulped"—I think that that is the appropriate word—by the Minister for Water and Planning.
I strongly support the inclusion for a special advisory committee in the Bill, although, as my hon. Friend says, that is purely incidental. An important point is that one member of the committee will come from the Severn-Trent water authority part of Wales. That is a significant improvement on the existing set-up. The Secretary of State's present responsibilities relate to the boundaries of the Welsh water authority, which are not conterminous with the Principality: they go into Cheshire in the north and Hereford and Worcester in the south, while the Severn-Trent water authority comes right into the middle of Wales. He will now have a greater say on water quality and pollution control in the central part of Wales.
5.15 pm
The special advisory committee, backed by the Secretary of State's direct responsibility for statutory decisions in Wales and his joint responsibility for the NRA, will play an important part in setting a framework for the NRA's activities in Wales. That will help to ensure that the NRA is efficient and effective in securing improvements in both water quality and pollution control in Wales.
One point that the Opposition have continually missed is that the NRA will not be some top-heavy body concentrated in London, with hardly any members in the rest of the country. It will have a strong regional structure, including 660 members based in Wales. In Standing Committee the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor continually stressed the importance of local knowledge of rivers to river basin management in the Principality. I agree with him, and that will continue.
It is an important point that the headquarters unit of the NRA will be small. The body will not be distant from Wales and dominated by London but based very much within the Principality. The fact that the mass of its staff will be in the Principality, together with the special advisory committee, totally undermines the arguments for a separate Welsh rivers authority. A separate Welsh authority would lead to unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy. It would not fit the boundaries of the new public limited companies, which of course will be conterminous with the existing water authorities. I strongly endorse my hon. Friend's view that a separate authority would also undermine the principles of river basin management, which I thought were favoured strongly by all hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I try to quote the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) at least once in my speeches. On Tuesday 10 January, quoting from the Welsh Water journal, the hon. Gentleman said:
Welsh Water rivers are holding their own in the quality stakes".—[Official Report. Standing Committee D, 10 January 1989; c. 55.]
Of course he is right. There have been dramatic improvements in water quality and pollution control in the Principality, thanks largely to the Government enabling the water authority to increase its capital expenditure. That spending will be accelerated when privatisation frees the authority from external financing limits.
Yes, we still have a long way to go. We must make up for years of neglect by the last Labour Government, who did not cut capital expenditure on water and sewerage infrastructure so much as slash and mutilate it. They reduced it by one third. With that record, Opposition Members are in no position to give us lectures about how to improve water quality or control pollution.
I want to respond briefly to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) about the EEC water quality and bathing water directives. We have seen a dramatic improvement in the quality of our beaches in Wales in the last year. I do not want the hon. Gentleman's remarks to go unanswered in the Welsh press. He should show more responsibility in his interventions. I note that he has now disappeared from the Chamber; he came in only to provide a quick quote for the Western Mail and then disappear. That is the contempt that he shows for the Chamber. If unanswered, his remarks could be highly damaging to Welsh tourism, and I intend to answer them.
There has been a dramatic improvement in the quality of our water and beaches in Wales. It is true that there could have been still greater improvement, but the blame for that not happening lies with the Opposition and their total neglect of capital spending on water infrastructure and sewage works during their last term of office, to the cuts that they instituted post-1976. I strongly endorse the advisory committee which will greatly benefit Wales and I look forward to its being set up.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: First, I must express my regret that only 38 minutes were available to discuss the Welsh aspects of the Bill. I hope the people of Wales realise that that is unsatisfactory.
I welcome the Government's proposals as a move in the right direction. As the Minister acknowledged the strength of argument in Committee for putting the provisions on the face of the Bill, he must face the logic that there should be a Welsh rivers authority. The Minister has said that it is vital for decisions to be taken locally and emphasised the

fact that most of the employees will be located in Wales and neighbouring English regions, as did the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) a moment ago. The Minister said that the Secretary of State's powers in Wales will be as strong after the Bill has been enacted as they are now. Taking those three points together, the case for decisions to be taken in Wales for the benefit of Wales and on the basis of circumstances in Wales is overwhelming. Wales has specific problems which need the freedom to take decisions locally. Those of us who were in Pontypridd before the by-election saw the floods in the Taff valley. Those floods, and the floods that hit Carmarthen only a few weeks ago—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) is not present—are evidence of the problems in Wales which require local decision-taking.
The amendments reflect an ironic position. We are to have two committees dealing with Wales—one is to be the advisory committee to the Secretary of State, which is conterminous with Wales, and the other is the regional advisory committee of the National Rivers Authority which may or may not be conterminous with Wales. Amendment No 9 refers to the regional advisory committee covering:
wholly, mainly … or … most of Wales.
The Government virtually acknowledge that there needs to be a strong legislative structure to deal with Wales, with all the powers that currently exist, but instead of having one structure we are to have two. The hon. Member for Delyn rightly said that we should avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication, yet that is exactly what we are getting.
The logic of what the Minister announced today and of the amendments that we are debating is that we should move towards a regional advisory committee, which is part of the structure for England and Wales but conterminous with Wales, being amalgamated with the advisory committee which should then be given the powers of a fully-fledged authority. To that extent, we have proposed amendments to Government amendments Nos. 9 and 10. In the meantime, I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), which provide more powers and spell out the responsibilities of the advisory committee. We have tabled amendments today because the needs of Wales as a unit in its own right are recognised, but the administrative bodies have not been given sufficient responsibility lest they start doing what needs to be done for Wales. The amendments provide for half that job. We now need the other half.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: If there was ever proof or evidence of the need for a major measure of devolution, it is the charade of debating major legislative issues affecting Welsh institutions in 38 minutes as a result of the guillotine and the way in which the House has performed. The United Kingdom Parliament legislates for the United Kingdom and I uphold that principle even when the Government of the day do not command a majority in the nation for which they are legislating. But —and it is a massive but—they should do so with respect for the views of the majority when they alter the structures, institutions and organisations which are directly responsible for the Principality. Our fundamental objection is that the Government are not doing that.
I must be one of the few survivors of the Water Act 1973. I served on the Committee considering that Bill and


heard the Government justifying the concept of an integrated Welsh water authority commanding all powers and responsibilities. They boasted about giving executive power to that water authority and said that they were creating a Welsh water authority, although due to the river basins other territories outside the Principality were to be included in its operations. Now the Government seek to break up the Welsh water authority and to establish another authority which is deprived of any executive responsibility. We are being fobbed off by Ministers in a Government who do not command a majority in the Principality. We have been fobbed off with an advisory arrangement replacing an arrangement under which we had executive responsibility directly accountable to the Secretary of State, and through the Secretary of State to the House and to the people of Wales.
The Minister should not be surprised if there is a sharp and bitter reaction to the way in which the Government are behaving and are treating institutions in the Principality over which they do not command the legitimacy of a majority of people in Wales to justify the legislative actions. If nothing else, at least we have the right to expect the Government to respond to our request. If we are to be fobbed off with an advisory committee, at least it should have the additional responsibility contained in the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) to which I give my wholehearted support.

Mr. Richard Livsey: New clause 8 is extremely important, and the new Welsh advisory committee is welcome. However, it does not have real executive power. That is a great weakness because it means that the committee is a toothless body. At least the Government have recognised the need for a Welsh committee, and we have to accept crumbs from their table. It is clear that there is no adequate funding for the NRA nationally or in Wales, and that is a serious problem. The functions of the NRA with regard to fisheries, land drainage and other matters are crucial.
In particular we have lost democratic control. After the 1973 Act, the water authorities at least contained local authority representation. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) proposes democratic local authority representa-tion on the advisory committee. I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance about local authority representation.
The advisory committee's lack of accountability is very serious. The appointment and patronage of the Secretary of State is not acceptable. How many representatives of the Severn-Trent area will be on the advisory committee? That has not been mentioned, but it is extremely important. The committee's functions cover drainage, pollution control, fisheries and recreation, all of which are crucial. I do not know whether compensatory water flow control from some of our reservoirs can be guaranteed as it has been in the past, but I hope that such matters will be properly attended to by the advisory committee. The lack of technical services and the importance of a research base for the NRA is absolutely vital.
I regret that time is running out, but I hope that there will not be over-centralised organisation within Wales and that local knowledge will be taken into account.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I understand that the Opposition are concerned mainly about amendment (a), which seeks to widen the functions of the advisory committee so that it would be concerned with all the provisions of the Bill and not just the functions of the National Rivers Authority. I remind the Opposition that there will be a Director General of Water Services and a consumer committee for Wales. Decisions about flood defence works, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), are taken locally by the regional flood defence committees.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause accordingly read a Second time.

Amendment (b) proposed to the new clause: leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert
`shall comprise

(a) representatives of local authorities in Wales;
(b) the chairmen of fisheries, drainage and recreation committees in Wales; and
(c) representatives of such consumer, environmental and recreational organisations as the Secretary of State may consider to be affected.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 322.

Division No 125]
[5 30pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Allen, Graham
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Alton, David
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Dixon, Don


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dobson, Frank


Armstrong, Hilary
Doran, Frank


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Douglas, Dick


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Eadie, Alexander


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Eastham, Ken


Battle, John
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beckett, Margaret
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Beggs, Roy
Fatchett, Derek


Beith, A. J.
Faulds, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fearn, Ronald


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Blair, Tony
Fisher, Mark


Blunkett, David
Flannery, Martin


Boyes, Roland
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fraser, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fyfe, Maria


Buckley, George J.
Galbraith, Sam


Caborn, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Callaghan, Jim
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cartwright, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gordon, Mildred


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Graham, Thomas


Clay, Bob
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coleman, Donald
Grocott, Bruce


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Haynes, Frank


Corbyn, Jeremy
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cousins, Jim
Heffer, Eric S.


Crowther, Stan
Henderson, Doug


Cryer, Bob
Hinchliffe, David


Cummings, John
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Home Robertson, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Hood, Jimmy


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Darling, Alistair
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)






Howells, Geraint
Pendry, Tom


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L.


Hoyle, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Redmond, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Ingram, Adam
Reid, Dr John


Janner, Greville
Richardson, Jo


Johnston, Sir Russell
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Robertson, George


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rogers, Allan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Rooker, Jeff


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowlands, Ted


Leadbitter, Ted
Ruddock, Joan


Leighton, Ron
Salmond, Alex


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Terry
Sheerman, Barry


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livsey, Richard
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Short, Clare


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sillars, Jim


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


McAllion, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McCartney, Ian
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Snape, Peter


McFall, John
Soley, Clive


McGrady, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Steel, Rt Hon David


McKelvey, William
Steinberg, Gerry


McLeish, Henry
Stott, Roger


McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Gavin


McTaggart, Bob
Straw, Jack


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Madden, Max
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Marek, Dr John
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Vaz, Keith


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wall, Pat


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wallace, James


Martlew, Eric
Walley, Joan


Maxton, John
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Meacher, Michael
Wareing, Robert N.


Michael, Alun
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wigley, Dafydd


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Morley, Elliott
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Winnick, David


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mullin, Chris
Worthington, Tony


Murphy, Paul
Wray, Jimmy


Nellist, Dave
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



O'Brien, William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Mr. Nigel Griffiths.


Patchett, Terry





NOES


Adley, Robert
Baldry, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Allason, Rupert
Bendall, Vivian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Amess. David
Benyon, W.


Amos, Alan
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arbuthnot, James
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ashby, David
Body, Sir Richard


Aspinwall, Jack
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bottomley, Peter





Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gregory, Conal


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Ground, Patrick


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grylls, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bright, Graham
Hague, William


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hannam, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr')


Buck, Sir Antony
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Budgen, Nicholas
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Alan


Butcher, John
Hawkins, Christopher


Butler, Chris
Hayes, Jerry


Butterfill, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carrington, Matthew
Heddle, John


Carttiss, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chope, Christopher
Hind, Kenneth


Churchill, Mr
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howard, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Critchley, Julian
Hunter, Andrew


Curry, David
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Irvine, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Irving, Charles


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Janman, Tim


Dicks, Terry
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Tony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, James


Eggar, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Knapman, Roger


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Favell, Tony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Knowles, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knox, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lament, Rt Hon Norman


Forman, Nigel
Lang, Ian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Latham, Michael


Forth, Eric
Lawrence, Ivan


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Franks, Cecil
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Freeman, Roger
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


French, Douglas
Lilley, Peter


Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Gale, Roger
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gardiner, George
Lord, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McCrindle, Robert


Glyn, Dr Alan
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Goodlad, Alastair
Mac Kay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maclean, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gow, Ian
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Madel, David






Major, Rt Hon John
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Malins, Humfrey
Sayeed, Jonathan


Mans, Keith
Scott, Nicholas


Maples, John
Shaw, David (Dover)


Marland, Paul
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Marlow, Tony
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Shersby, Michael


Mates, Michael
Sims, Roger


Maude, Hon Francis
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mellor. David
Speller, Tony


Miller, Sir Hal
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mills, Iain
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Miscampbell, Norman
Squire, Robin


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mitchell, Sir David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Moate, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Monro, Sir Hector
Stern, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stevens, Lewis


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Moss, Malcolm
Sumberg, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mudd, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Neubert, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nicholls, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thorne, Neil


Norris, Steve
Thurnham, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Page, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Paice, James
Tredinnick, David


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Trippier, David


Patnick, Irvine
Trotter, Neville


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Pawsey, James
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walden, George


Portillo, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Powell, William (Corby)
Waller, Gary


Price, Sir David
Walters, Sir Dennis


Raffan, Keith
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Rathbone, Tim
Watts, John


Redwood, John
Wheeler, John


Renton, Tim
Whitney, Ray


Rhodes James, Robert
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wiggin, Jerry


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wolfson, Mark


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Woodcock, Mike


Roe, Mrs Marion
Yeo, Tim


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rost, Peter



Rowe, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Sackville, Hon Tom
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause be added to the Bill.

It being half-past Five o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [6 February] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to draw your attention briefly to the fact

that we have just witnessed nothing more than a legislative farce. A debate on a major Welsh issue has been truncated from what should have been at least a two-hour debate, even under a guillotine motion, to 38 minutes. That is because other important business intruded into the time available under the guillotine motion. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, draw Mr. Speaker's attention to that matter and ask him whether he will refer it to the Select Committee on Procedure so that it can consider whether debates under a timetable motion should be interrupted in such a manner and whether they should be protected business which cannot be eaten into by Government or any other business?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I suggest that the hon. Gentleman raises the matter himself with the Select Committee on Procedure.

New Clause 9

WATER QUALITY IN SCOTLAND

`Schedule [Water Quality in Scotland] to this Act shall have effect to make provision for Scotland in relation to the quality of water.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 11 and 42.

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since we have only one and a quarter hours to debate three new clauses, would it be convenient to debate them all together rather than separately?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a little hypothetical at the moment. I shall not be in the Chair throughout, but while I am I shall take a tolerant view, particularly over the first two new clauses, which are fairly closely related. The third new clause may be a little wide of those. However, in view of the time constraint, the Chair will be tolerant.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: New clause 9 is a paving measure to introduce the new schedule in Government amendment No. 11 on water quality in Scotland.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that the Government would introduce on Report a limited number of amendments relating to drinking water and protection of the water environment. The amendments introduce new provisions on the quality of water supplies to the existing legislation in the Water (Scotland) Act 1980. The provisions have the same effect as the provisions already in chapter II of part II for England and Wales, and have been discussed in Committee. They are in the same terms as the provisions for England and Wales except where we have taken account of particular Scottish circumstances.
The provisions are based on consultations which took place throughout Britain in 1986. We stated our intention then to use the Bill to apply a limited number of legislative proposals to Scotland in order to maintain a common line with England and Wales where necessary, especially in the context of EC obligations.
The provisions are evidence of our commitment to high-quality drinking water in Scotland. They will be backed up by strong regulations, on which we will be consulting soon, which will make it clear that all water supplies—public and private—must meet the quality standards in the EC drinking water directive and a number of additional standards, within agreed time scales. We propose to set down minimum sampling and treatment requirements which exceed those in EC directives, and materials and chemicals used in water treatment and distribution systems will be subject to a statutory approval process. Comprehensive information on water quality will be made available to the public to demonstrate whether supplies meet the standards, and, if they do not, what steps are being taken to comply.

Mr. Maxton: I am slightly surprised to hear the Minister say that draft regulations will soon be put out for consultation. My information is that that has already happened and many people already know the details of them.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman may be confusing the consultation to which I referred with the consultation last week on another document relating to land, whereas the regulations to which I referred deal with water and sewerage.
The amendments will also enable the Secretary of State to take action to ensure that a water authority complies with its duty to supply wholesome water if he is satisfied that it has contravened any of the statutory requirements.
I should emphasise that our water supplies in Scotland are generally of very good quality. The water authorities have already made good progress in improving supplies which repeatedly failed to meet the exacting standards of the EC directive. That progress is being maintained. The remaining improvement programmes are being completed as quickly as possible.
Until last year we had been working on the understanding that occasional failure to meet one of the directive's standards did not require action to be taken. However, the European Commission took the view that that interpretation was not correct, even where the standard had nothing to do with health, but concerned, for example, the colour of the water. The Government considered the matter further and have since adopted the Commission's interpretation.
The water authorities have investigated the implica-tions of this new interpretation and are preparing improvement programmes for supplies which occasionally breach a standard. Those programmes will be discussed with the Scottish Development Department. They will relate mainly to factors affecting the appearance and taste of water, such as colour, iron and manganese.
To maintain and improve the quality of our water supplies requires investment. The Government have played their part through the expenditure allocations to the regional councils in respect of water and sewerage. In 1985–86 the capital allocation for the Scottish water and sewerage programme was £95 million. The original allocation to the authorities for 1988–89 was £107 million, but last November we made a supplementary allocation of £5·5 million to the programme. For 1989–90 the capital allocation has been set at £121·5 million, an increase of 14 per cent. over this year's planned provision.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Let me direct the Minister's attention to the sewerage rather than water purity side of the figures. Strathclyde region will have £3 million extra for sewerage schemes in the coming year, for which I am grateful. I am also grateful for the courtesy with which colleagues and I were received by the Minister. However, £3 million is—if the hon. Gentleman will pardon the expression—a spit in the ocean compared with what is required. I am told that for just one of the sewage teams needed to clean up the Clyde it will take between £10 and £15 million. Clearly, the cleaning up of the Clyde will not be achieved on the basis of the kind of figures the Minister was talking about. I suggest it is really a test of the Government's green priorities whether they will make available serious resources for the cleaning up not just of the large beaches of the Clyde but also of the smaller beaches in the foreseeable future.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Member, who came to see me with a deputation from Strathclyde region. I am very much in favour of a strong environmental policy, which is why we have had the 14 per cent. increase this year. There are, of course, a number of major schemes in hand now in Strathclyde aimed at improving the waters off the Ayrshire coast and off the hon. Member's constituency. Overall planned expenditure on sewerage is slightly over half of the total water sewerage programme. The capital allocation for the programme is about £40 million in 1988–89 and £45 million in 1989–90. Priority schemes include works at Troon, Barassie, Irvine harbour, Saltcoats and the Garnoch valley sewer, so a certain amount is happening.

Mr. Wilson: I accept that, but will the Minister accept my point that, with the current levels of increase, the time scale goes into the next century and that there is a serious problem which requires a different scale of resources altogether? Will he also accept the point that these beaches are the major beaches in Ayrshire which require cleaning up, but there are many smaller beaches on the Clyde which are not designated for European standards purposes, and they are falling through the net altogether? In places like Seamill, Fairlie and the Isle of Arran there is no prospect whatsoever, even within this programme, which reaches into infinity as it is, of anything being done about the problems in these areas.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I obviously take seriously what the hon. Members says, which relates to the next new clause. These are matters which take a certain number of years to resolve. I was encouraged to see that The Daily Record today said that in the war on water:
Scotland shines at the top of the class. There's a sparkle in the seemingly endless floods of worldwide dirty water. Scotland's pollution control on our inland water has reversed a century of neglect. Our rivers and lochs are the cleanest in the world—an average 95·3 per cent. of our water is pollution free.
The point which the hon. Member has made will be borne in mind.

Mr. Jim Sillars: rose——

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am tempted to give way to the hon. Member. We shall take these matters into account when the next PESC round of public expenditure is considered and the priorities are worked out because we want a strong environmental policy, which accounts for the increase in expenditure.
I am anxious to get back to the amendment but I will give way.

Mr. Sillars: With regard to the quote from The Daily Record, has it ever crossed the Minister's mind that the reason we can boast like that is that our water is in the public sector?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member takes me on to a completely different point—why there is no privatisation in Scotland. We concluded that there was no case at present for a similar move in Scotland, where the existing arrangements are operating satisfactorily. In Scotland, as the hon. Member knows, water and sewerage services are the responsibility of the regions' and islands' councils, while control of water pollution is the responsibility of independent statutory river purification boards and the islands' councils in their area. I confirm we have no plans to privatise water services in Scotland.
I return to the new clause, as I am anxious that as many hon. Members as possible can speak. The supplementary allocation this year and the increased provision for 1989–90 will go a long way to meeting the needs of the local authorities. Though they are free to set their own expenditure priorities, they will be able to make faster progress in attaining European Commission standards in the drinking water and other directives. The amendments provide a sound basis for ensuring that the quality of water supplies in Scotland is maintained and improved where necessary. They are an important addition to the existing water legislation, and will provide further protection for the health of the Scottish people. They are also necessary to fulfil Britain's legal obligations under the EC drinking water directive, but I emphasise that the regulations will go beyond the requirements of that directive, and I am sure that the addition of such robust and wide-ranging provisions to the existing Scottish water legislation will be widely welcomed.
I do not want to keep hon. Members out, because it is a very short debate.

Mr. James Wallace: The Minister has indicated what he wishes to see achieved. Does he have any time scale in mind?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Most of the lead improvement programmes will be ready by the end of the year. Other programmes, relating for example to aluminium, will run into the mid-1990s, and that is the most accurate answer I can give.
I will speak very briefly about amendment No. 42. Section 31 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 provides that a water authority in Scotland may consult an adjoining water authority or other appropriate authority in England about securing the best use of water supplies in the public interest, that is, to consider whether water in England should be transferred for use in Scotland and vice versa. This amendment simply changes the reference to "water authorities" to "water undertakers", to reflect the new organisation in England.
I hope there will be some time for the new clause following, but I hope we have a wide-ranging debate on this issue first.

Mr. Maxton: I was surprised at the complacency of the Minister's speech, both because he said problems in

Scottish waters do not exist—or almost do not exist; he said we are one of the best—and also because of the timescale in which he suggested what problems we have will be resolved.
We welcome these new clauses, though giving an hour and a half of prime parliamentary time for clauses which are important, but not controversial, in the middle of the most controversial Bill in this Session of Parliament, if not of the whole Parliament, seems to me a deliberate attempt by the Government to delay the major attack on them which will inevitably take place later in the night. The time for consultation on the new clauses was far too short. They were tabled only last week. I gather that the director with responsibility for sewage matters for Strathclyde region received his copies this morning and was therefore totally unable to advise people such as myself and my hon. Friends on the exact implications.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the hon. Member aware that, whilst the Department of the Environment published its proposals for consultation on regulations last month, we still have to do so?

Mr. Maxton: That may be correct, but I am talking about the new clause we are debating tonight, and the notes on clauses, which the director in the Strathclyde region received this morning, with no time to consult or advise hon. Members in the constituencies which he covers.
I am grateful to the Minister and to his advisers for the courtesy they have shown over the past few days in ensuring that I and my hon. Friend, the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) were properly briefed on the new clauses. I am always reluctant to say nice things about the Minister, because every time I do so they appear in his next election address; therefore, I do not want to get too carried away.
This clause, as the Minister said, gives power to the Government to introduce regulations to ensure that Scottish water quality and the pollution levels in waters of all sorts reach standards laid down by EC regulations and that Scottish consumers receive water of at least the same quality as that provided by the new water plcs which will be established in England and Wales as a result of the Bill.
The EC directive on quality of water intended for human consumption became effective on 15 July 1985, and the directive imposed objective quality standards on water supplied from the public supply system as measured at treatment works and consumer taps. It is important to remember that there are two different terms of quality. It defines desirable and acceptable limits for 62 chemical and bacteriological parameters, though in practice this always means, of course, that there is what has become known as MAC, I gather, in the trade: maximum admissible concentration. Initially water authorities applied for delays or derogations under articles 9 and 20 of the directive in order to relax the approved standards. These applications, however, were made on the basis of compliance with the MAC values on a three-month or 12-month average basis. However, on 2 December 1987, speaking for all Secretaries of State covering water authorities, the Secretary of State for the Environment said that the MAC values
should relate to individual samples and not to averages." —(Official Report, 2 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 915.]
I was slightly surprised to hear that the draft regulations have not been put out to consultation. The


people to whom I have been speaking about water quality seem to know exactly what the new regulations will lay down. Perhaps I am talking to people in the Minister's own advisory committees. The draft regulations will lay down the minimum standards for water at the point at which it goes into the supply system and when it comes out of the consumer's tap. They are to be welcomed.
6 pm
The problem is that the clauses and the regulations that will follow them have enormous resource implications which the Government must recognise—the Minister did not recognise them—and ensure that local authorities are given sufficient money to enable work to be carried out.
I consulted with Mr. Chambers, the director of water, for Strathclyde region yesterday. He was extremely helpful and knowledgeable. Therefore, I will refer to Strathclyde region to illustrate examples of what he believes to be the implications of the regulations. I am sure that other authorities will have similar problems.
As my hon. Friends know, much of the Strathclyde region's water system dates back a long time. Last year was the 150th anniversary of the opening of Paisley's water system, and this year is the 130th anniversary of the first phase of the Loch Katrine system upon which Glasgow still largely depends. That water is supplied through cast-iron pipes that are now badly corroded on the inside and thus have a small bore capacity. Many pipes still in houses are made of lead. Glasgow in particular has great problems with lead levels well above EEC standards. Strathclyde region has been putting lime into the water to try to correct the solvency problem. On a trial basis, it is now putting potassium into some water. That has considerably helped with the problems of the combination of soft water and lead.
We also have much natural aluminium in many water supplies in Strathclyde. It may not be proven, but a clear link between aluminium and Alzheimer's disease and its causes is certainly beginning to be recognised. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) may say something further about that. Although we have those problems, the high catchment and plentiful water supplies mean that Strathclyde has few problems with the nitrate pollution that plague some water authorities here and abroad. Strathclyde does not need to recycle water, as happens in the south-east of England.
Let us examine what the new regulations mean to Strathclyde region. I am informed that, just to ensure that the standards for treatment works are met in terms of lead, aluminium and the amount of disinfectant required, it will involve a capital cost of about £170 million. Another £45 million capital expenditure must be spent on treatment works to comply with the other elements of the EEC directive. Modern automatic communication and control systems must be introduced to ensure that the quality of water is maintained at all times. If we are to expect 100 per cent. sampling levels, we must control the supply all the time, and that will cost another £10 million. To ensure that the quality of water is then maintained to the consumer's tap, 8,000 kms of mains piping will have to be reconditioned or replaced at an estimated cost of about £350 million. Thus, in Strathclyde alone, the capital cost required to comply with the regulations which we believe are coming is £575 million.
At current levels of capital expenditure—that includes the great boast of a 14 per cent. increase—it will take 18

years' work to comply with the directive on aluminium, lead and micro-biological standards, and another five years to comply with the directive in full. Of course, the EEC expects our water to comply completely with the directive by 1995.
Not only capital costs are involved. In recent years, in Strathclyde, the number of routine and complaint samples taken and analysed have dramatically increased to 20,000 bacteriological and 12,000 chemical samples a year. A conservative estimate of the sampling requirements that will be needed following the legislation fully to meet the specified frequencies will raise the number of bacteriologi-cal samples to 50,000, and chemical samples to 36,000. Inevitably, that means more laboratories and extra staff for sampling and analysing. A rough estimate of the cost of that is £500,000 a year.
Most of Strathclyde's treatment plants are single stage. They will all have to be converted to modern two or more stages of treatment. I have already dealt with the capital involvement, but those conversions will inevitably mean more manpower, more chemicals and more electrical power to operate, while maintenance costs in terms of manpower and replacement seals, motors, pumps, dosing systems and so on, will lead to much increased current expenditure on top of capital costs. Again, the necessity to provide pure water to consumers means that the region will have to have emergency non-pipe supplies—that is, tankers—available to ensure supply if the supply drops below acceptable levies.
The schedule and draft regulations also require the same standards to be met by private supplies. Thus, if a house or farm in rural area has its own private spring or well piped into the house, it will be required to meet the same EEC standards—the legislation makes that clear—as are required for the normal water supply. Again, that has cost implications for the local authority and/or the individual property owner. If the cost of providing a public supply is cheaper than upgrading the existing supply, the local authority must install a new supply. If not, the private owner will have to spend large sums of money improving his own water supply to bring it up to the standard.
It has been much more difficult to give any estimates of the increased costs for local authorities for the control of pollution measures—if there are any. On the face of ii, it is purely a tidying-up measure, mainly concerned with the use of language, and changing "water authority" to "river purification board". Nobody has had an opportunity to examine the matter in detail and find out exactly what it means. The three-mile coastal waters limit is now included. Therefore, that includes EEC control of beaches and the level of sewage on beaches. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said, there will be enormous cost if sewage must be treated before it is put out to sea or if pipes must be put a long way out to sea to make sure that it does not come back. That will involve local authorities in enormous cost. As I said, it is difficult to get the information. The directors of sewage have not been able to go through that information sufficiently.
It is clear that extra money in sufficient quantities must be found if the EEC standards are to be reached in the foreseeable future. Where will that money come from? The Government must provide capital grants to ensure that the required capital work is undertaken. It is not good enough to increase capital allocations. Capital allocations are no


more than borrowing consents. They inevitably increase the costs of the water supply, because local authorities must then take account of interest rates, and that cost will be imposed on the consumer. The Government cannot throw the cost of the new legislation and the regulations that will follow entirely, if at all, upon the consumer. We must remember that non-domestic consumers will have massively increased costs—the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir. H. Monro) will appreciate that point—which will create great difficulties for companies operating at the margins of profit.
Even more important, if the burden is placed fully upon water authorities to recoup from their consumers, the majority of the cost will have to be obtained from the water poll tax or the water community charge. This would mean massive increases in the water poll tax. But my hon. Friends know that the water poll tax, unlike the poll tax, is not a rebatable charge, and is to be paid in full by everybody, from the poorest to the richest. There will be the same standard water and sewerage community charge, with no rebate. The only people who will not pay it in full are students.
Thus, if these costs increase, the very poor will have to bear the major burden of ensuring that the water supplies in Strathclyde and Scotland are met, and that cannot be just. I seek assurances from the Minister that his Department and the Exchequer will meet the costs of this measure in capital grants to local authorities and increasing revenue support to local authorities to ensure that the poll tax payers, especially the poorest, do not have yet another burden placed upon them by the Government. The Opposition will not vote against the clauses, but I hope that the Minister will give us some answers.

Sir Hector Monro: I should like to say a few words in support of the Minister's proposals in the new clauses. There are few countries where one can go to a cold tap and have a drink of water with the absolute certainty that one will not be any the worse off. But we should not be complacent because of that. It is good news indeed that the Government are taking a strong line about the quality of water for drinking and general use.
I have been concerned about piping, and its cost, to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) referred. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about the capital cost of renewing the lead and aluminium and other pipes that are not up to standard so that the quality of water does not fall on its way from the filter stations to our taps.
It seems strange that in Scotland—where it has done nothing but rain in the past year—sometimes we are very concerned about the quantity of water that is available for drinking, and it should be of the highest quality. Whether it comes by abstraction, impounding, by filter stations or from artesian wells, it can be in short supply in times of drought. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear those points in mind when he is thinking again about capital expenditure and revenue support grant for running costs. If we do not have adequate supplies of water when we need them, an industry might slip out of our clutches and go elsewhere when large quantities of water are required.
6.15 pm
Obviously the quality of water varies whether it is water for drinking or for fishing in. I commend that point to the Minister, because if the water in our rivers is of high quality it is likely that we shall have a much higher standard of fishing, which is very beneficial to the local community.
We should recognise the importance of the work of regional councils in providing the excellent water service in Scotland and at the same time commend the river purification boards for the standards that they have achieved in the past 20 to 30 years in making the rivers of Scotland very much safer for general use.
The hon. Member for Cathcart referred to the Clyde. We know how that river has been improving. A salmon is occasionally caught somewhere on the Clyde. That is certainly a step in the right direction. I dare say that my hon. Friend the Minister of Sport, when he has occasionally coxed a winning boat on the Thames, has been thrown overboard. In the old days, he would have been pumped out to save him from dying, but now they can throw him overboard with impunity as the quality of the river has improved so greatly.
It is important—and I am sure that the Minister will remark on this—to have frequent monitoring the quality of our water. If we do not monitor and analyse it, we shall not know to what extent we are fulfilling the European Community directives, and maintaining the high standards that we are setting ourselves for the future.
The measure will also cover monitoring of water with regard to acid rain. In Galloway, where that is prevalent, monitoring is carried out of the water quality with regard to forestry planting, granite rock or the very thin soil in that part of the countryside. We shall almost certainly need to have monitoring. As the hon. Member for Cathcart says, that will cost money. We cannot have increased quality without increased expenditure, whether it is for piping, filtration or monitoring the quality of rivers.
Perhaps the Minister will say a word about the position of environmental health officers in water testing. Is that to be left to the regions and the water supply authorities or will it be done by environmental health officers under their district responsibilities? It is important that we do not differ in our views—I do not anticipate that we shall—about who will carry out the monitoring of the water service.
I am glad that the Minister has taken power in the new clauses to provide supplies where there is a failure or where the supply has become unwholesome, either by means of a stand pipe or the provision of tankers, although clearly that provision would be only temporary. But could the Minister say whether the clause would come into effect in times of drought if there was insufficient water? Would that position be covered by the new clauses? Would the water authorities have to provide water by tanker during droughts?
I am very pleased that the Minister has taken this chance to implement the European Community directives and to go for higher quality water in Scotland. Therefore, I support the Minister's proposals.

Mr. Sillars: While I, like other hon. Members, welcome action that improves water quality, this is an absurd way for us to legislate on behalf of Scotland, by schedules tacked on to a major Bill for England and Wales under a


guillotine of an hour and a half. I believe that all of us, irrespective of our political differences, wish to register the strongest protest about that approach. It is insulting and absurd that we have to legislate in this manner.
During the period when I was out of this place, I took a course at Edinburgh university. I listened to professors and lecturers of constitutional law explaining to 18 and 19-year-old students how legislation reaches the statute book. The difference between the theory as taught at Edinburgh university, which is one of the foremost law schools in western Europe, and the practice is extraordinary.
I used to have great difficulty in tutorials explaining to the young students that it was not really like that at all, and that practising lawyers and indeed judges and sheriffs of judges of the Court of Session frequently complain that Scottish legislation is tacked on to measures the basic framework of which has nothing to do with Scotland.
I wish to illustrate for the Minister the absurdity of legislating in this fashion. The measure should have been a proper water Bill for Scotland, had a Second Reading and gone into Committee to be examined. At the moment, it would take a very able Philadelphia lawyer to whip through the new schedule and come up with the right conclusions as to its effect. The Minister is only an Edinburgh lawyer, not a Philadelphia lawyer. While I have a great deal of admiration for Edinburgh lawyers, some of whom rank among my best friends—[Interruption.] It would take too long to name them all. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) may wish to know that more of them are my friends than are my enemies.
The explanatory notes to the Bill refer to new schedule 11, which is section 76(1)(a) to be inserted in the Water (Scotland) Act 1980. Section 76A(1)(a) refers to
when supplying water … for domestic purposes".
That appears to be plain and simple. Most folk think that they know what "domestic purposes" are. The phrase conjures up visions of a house with somebody turning on a tap. Will the Minister tell me whether those provisions apply to, for example, building sites where the men get their water for "domestic purposes", for tea-making and brewing-up, perhaps from a spricket coming off a main? If a case went to court and someone said that something had happened to the quality of the water and that it was not good enough and if the learned judge at the Court of Session began interpreting the legislation major arguments would arise about exactly what "domestic" means in those circumstances.
Such things warrant more time than a few passing minutes in which they can be identified to the Minister and my point illustrates why this is not the correct way to legislate on something that is as important as this for Scotland.
I shall go into greater detail to illustrate how unacceptable this method is, bearing in mind that the courts have to interpret the legislation. If we compare subsection (3) of new schedule 11 with subsection (2) a contradiction arises because subsection (2) provides that—
For the purposes of this section"—
that is. section 76A—
and 76B below and subject to subsection (3) below, water supplied by a water authority to any premises shall not be regarded as unwholesome at the time of supply where it has ceased to be wholesome only after leaving the authority's pipes.
Subsection (3) states:

For the purposes of this section where water supplied by a water authority to any premises would not otherwise be regarded as unwholesome at the time of supply, that water shall be regarded as unwholesome at that time—".
It then goes on to state the reasons.
There is a contradiction between subsections (2) and (3). What does subsection (3) actually mean? The Government have been helpful and have published explanatory notes, page 6 of which states:
Normally the authority will not be responsible for any deterioration in quality caused by the internal plumbing within a property. However the authority will be considered to have breached its duty to supply wholesome water if after supply the water becomes unwholesome in pipes under mains pressure. … .as a result of the authority not having carried out certain actions prescribed in regulations in order to reduce certain risks, again prescribed in regulations".
As the Minister knows, not only is Hansard not consulted by the courts when they interpret Acts of Parliament, but nor are explanatory notes any good when pleaded in evidence when someone is trying to make a case about the interpretation of legislation. The explanatory notes may be helpful to us, but they do not add anything in terms of legal standing.
What I really object to is being required to talk about this new schedule today when the key issues are not yet before us and have not even been made known to us. In the explanatory note that I have quoted, the key words are "prescribed in regulations". That phrase is mentioned twice, but we need to have a fair idea of what the regulations are, even in draft. It is nonsense for us to discuss this new schedule without knowing what the Government have in mind in terms of secondary legislation because, to all intents and purposes, secondary legislation is the real legislation that people come across. It is unacceptable that we have been put in that position today. The Minister must come up with some answers. I know that we shall not divide on this—indeed. there is nothing to divide on—but there is a great deal to object to, especially because we have been asked to pass this legislation without knowing the detail of what the Government have in mind.
I should like clarification on one other point. I refer to the issue of there being no privatisation of water in Scotland. We have heard two statements from the Minister this afternoon—in the space of a minute—one saying, "No, we are not going to privatise" and the other saying, "We are not going to privatise at the present time". I should like an assurance about the phrase "at the present time". Was it a slip of the tongue by an Edinburgh lawyer. or was it an authoritative statement by a Minister of the Government? When the Minister replies, will he give us the kind of emphatic assurance that we have in parts of the explanatory memorandum—that the Government have no intention, in any circumstances, of privatising water in Scotland?

Mr. Thomas Graham: There are a few things that we take for granted—the air we breathe and the water we drink. There is a myth about Scotland's water because, although I have heard various things today, some of my evidence would prove, hat the quality of the water in Scotland is something shat we should be concerned about. The Government are entering into an exercise of public buck-passing in relation to the problems associated with the supply of water in Scotland.
The Government claim that it is not their fault, but that of the local councils. I am concerned about that and I shall return to it.
I have tabled several written questions and sent various letters and I am appalled at the replies that I have received. They show a terribly complacent attitude. The Government are covering up the major problems that are developing in Scotland's water. I have with me a written answer to one of my questions. It shows that 140 reservoirs which supply tap water are under—not above—the standards of the EEC water directives. The authorities are not complying with the directives. What does that mean? I will tell the House what it means to me. It means that scientists and the EEC have come up with what they thought were the maximum levels of admitted pollutants or chemicals and decided on a level that should not be exceeded. It is not good enough to have more than 140 water suppliers in Scotland, covering a vast area, failing to meet the standards. It is not good enough that people in Scotland are drinking water with pollutants well above the EEC recommended level.
In that written answer, the Minister also stated:
Up-to-date detailed cost figures for individual supplies are not available, but recent estimates by Scottish water authorities suggested that the overall cost of fully complying with the standards might approach £700 million."—[Official Report, 6 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 555–59.]
I think that £700 million to ensure that the 5 million people of Scotland drink water of a standard recommended by the EEC is cheap at the price, bearing in mind the evidence that was provided to ensure that we reach those vitally important recommended levels.
On 30 January 1989 the Glasgow Herald contained an article about Gourock in my constituency, stating that tests showed that the level of aluminium was four times higher than the EEC recommended. It is incredible that that state of affairs has been allowed to continue. I also have a document giving the results of a test carried out by agricultural analysts of the regional council. A constituent of mine, having requested a test of her water supply, received this document by mistake. I can assure the House that it is authentic. It indicates that the level of aluminium in the tap water that she and her children have to drink is eight times higher than the acceptable level. She was told that she should not have the document. As I have said, she received it by accident. When she asked for a further test to be carried out, the council told her that the level had come down, but she was never given the relevant document, a copy of which I have here.
6.30 pm
I agree with the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) that there should be an independent analysis, that this should not be left to the water authority. When people request an analysis, they should get a copy of the results so that they may know exactly what they are drinking. The Minister well knows the anxieties and concerns of my constituents. The Secretary of State has received letters from Professor Anderson, who is also extremely concerned. I know, too, that the Gourock community council has written to the Secretary of State because it is very worried about the link with Alzheimer's disease. I have received a number of letters from the Department denying that link, but I believe that it is a terrible cover-up job.
Research all over the world shows evidence of a link between aluminium and Alzheimer's disease. The difficulty is in getting the proof. I need only remind the House how long it took the tobacco barons to admit the link between cigarette smoking and cancer. I am not being alarmist when I say that I am really worried that constituents of mine are drinking water containing eight times the aluminium level recommended by the EC. It is said that there is not enough proof, but there is plenty of evidence to justify Government action. Even if this is a grey area, it should be remembered that it concerns the health of the people of Britain—in particular, the health of the people of Scotland. The Minister should make available the £700 million needed to ensure that the people of Scotland are provided with drinking water which comes up to EC standards.
I am appalled at the Government's complacency in this matter. If they want to prove that there is no link with Alzheimer's disease, let every member of the Cabinet drink every day water containing eight times the recommended level of aluminium. Indeed, some of the statements they have been making would tend to convince me that they have been drinking it already. I hope that the Minister will be able to say to children, "There is no problem—drink this." I wonder if the Prime Minister would volunteer to drink Gourock water. I will make sure that a supply is available. Indeed, I will bottle it and bring it down myself.
This is a very important matter. The people of Scotland deserve a water supply that meets the EC's recommenda-tions. We have heard a lot of nonsense today about the wonderful water in Scotland. According to Which? magazine, which did an investigation, the wonderful water in Scotland, especially in the Strathclyde area, contains aluminium, magnesium, iron and lead well above the recommended levels. Those levels can be brought down only if the Government commit £700 million to ensure that the EC directive is followed. That is the way to ensure that our people are able to drink healthy, wholesome water.
If the Government do not do something about this matter very shortly, it will be seen that we have been building a time bomb, and it is our children who will have to live with that time bomb. Nobody knows everything about Alzheimer's disease, but urgent research is being done all over the world. The Government of this country are not acting quickly enough to ensure that the people of Scotland do not have to drink the kind of water—water with eight times the acceptable level of aluminium—that my constituents have to drink. Let the Minister give us an assurance that £700 million will be provided to take the necessary action.

Mr. Wallace: I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) who, like other hon. Members, indicated that this is really no way to legislate on an important Scottish issue. I do not think that any hon. Member would challenge the importance of the subject of this debate, and we welcome the fact that efforts are being made to improve the quality of water throughout Scotland. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that the time allowed is so short, and the notice given so short.
I want to take up a specific matter with the Minister. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) thanked him and his officials for the information and briefing that had been given to him and his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Given the short notice, I do not complain about that, but I am


not aware that any such briefing was offered to my party or to that of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), the Scottish National party.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Or to us.

Mr. Wallace: Or, indeed, to Labour Back Benchers. If such an offer was made to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) as our spokesperson, I apologise for raising the matter. If not, I should like to know why the Scottish Office has been selective in its advance briefing on a matter such as this.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has a very great interest in the subject, as does the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Because they had consulted me on these matters in the past, it was only fair that, as a matter of courtesy, they should be put properly in the picture.

Mr. Wallace: I am not particularly convinced by that explanation. The offer was obviously made to one party but was not extended to others. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind in future when he introduces legislation at relatively short notice.
My second point concerns the vast amounts of money that will have to be spent if some of these targets are to be met. I was quite surprised that the time-scale that the Minister set for local authorities—I refer to his reply to my intervention—was so short. We shall all rejoice greatly if it is met, but if one accepts the massive figures that have been put forward by the hon. Member for Cathcart, one cannot by any stretch of the imagination believe that the target of the mid-1990s will be achieved. I want the Minister to comment on the vast amounts, in terms of both capital expenditure and revenue expenditure, that have been mentioned.

Mr. Maxton: There is the problem of the enormous cost involved, but the people in the Strathclyde region tell me that there simply are not companies able to do the work on that sort of time-scale. It could be done only by bringing in cowboy-type companies, which would make a mess of it.

Mr. Wallace: That very point occurred to me as I sat down, so I shall not waste time by making it again.
Had I had time, I should have wanted to make inquiries of local authorities in my own area as to how they perceive the workload that might be put on them to meet these targets. If the Minister can indicate what further funds will be made available to them in the years ahead for that purpose, I shall certainly be very grateful. With a relatively small population, any additional capital cost that is not met by grant will weigh very heavily on individuals, particularly in the context of the community water charge.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) asked whether a district environmental health officer would monitor the supply by the region. In the context of the islands, where there is single tier local government, there is no doubt which level of local government will be responsible. Has the Minister perceived that there might be a conflict of interest? We have not had time to consult our local authorities to find out whether they perceive a difficulty, so I shall be interested to hear what thought has been given to that by the Scottish Office.

Mr. Home Robertson: I share the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) about the apparent link between the concentration of aluminium in the water supply and the incidence of Alzheimer's disease. Whether such aluminium is present naturally in the water, as I suppose that it may be in some areas, or whether, as is more likely, it has been added as part of the so-called purification system by the authorities supplying water, it is a matter of great concern. Surely discoloration or scum in the water, which are not in themselves harmful, would be more acceptable than the inclusion of aluminium to remove the scum. The House will want assurances from the Government about that.
In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) raised the need for urgent major capital works to improve sewage disposal in Scotland. My hon. Friend referred to the Clyde and the massive costs that would be involved in raising the sewage disposal plant to the standard required by the European Community. The Minister, who has the good fortune to live in my constituency, will be aware of the strong feelings of some of his neighbours in north Berwick about the fact that the firth of Forth is subject to a great deal of pollution, with raw sewage being pumped into it from an aged sewage disposal plant. From time to time, the sewage turns up on beaches and is absolutely revolting. The Minister has met representatives of local authorities who have made strong representations to him about the need to speed up the programme of capital allocations to make it possible to dispose of that sewage in a more satisfactory manner. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) explained, it will take a long time at the present rate, or even at a slightly accelerated rate, to bring our beaches up to a tolerable standard.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart emphasised, the burden of paying the loan charges which would arise from such a major capital programme would land heavily on poll tax payers, and in particular the poorer poll tax payers because the water poll tax is not rebated. That will cause great concern. How long does the Minister expect it to be before the beaches and coastal waters of Scotland are free from the unacceptable pollution that is present in some areas now? How long will it take and how much will it cost? The Minister owes it to the House and to the people of Scotland to give proper replies to those specific questions.
A detailed point connected with my .constituency is the effect of the abstraction of water from water courses. In arable farming areas such as East Lothian, a large volume of water may be taken out of rivers and burns by farmers to irrigate the land. That can have the effect of reducing the flow of water, leading to an increase in the concentration of pollution in the water that is left in the water course. As I understand it, in Scotland there are no controls on abstraction such as there are in England. We should address ourselves to that point at some stage.
6.45 pm
I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) that this is a grossly unsatisfactory way of dealing with Scottish legislation. It is an example of the kind of legislation that ought to be dealt with in a Scottish parliament in due course, with proper consultation and proper information. I also share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the assurance given by the Minister that we


shall not have water privatisation in Scotland. The last time I heard a Scottish Office Minister giving an assurance like that was when the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) told us that there were no plans to privatise the electricity industry in Scotland. When we see what is happening now, I do not think that we can believe these people.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I too share the legitimate complaint raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) and by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I could speak for some time on the control of pollution in Scottish waters from the viewpoint of the traditional fisherman. In Government amendment No. 88 —a schedule dealing with the control of pollution in Scotlannd—under new section 31A(1)
The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—
(a) for prohibiting a person from having custody or control of any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter".
Does that extend to the use of pesticides which, when water-borne, may have a pronounced effect upon the flora and fauna of sea lochs and rivers? That is a real concern to our fishermen, particularly those who use static gear close to salmon fish farms.
The Minister knows well that I have for long complained about the use of a particular pesticide, Nuvan 500 EC, on salmon farms. Many researchers claim that that pesticide has a disastrous effect on infant crustacea, with serious consequences for our static gear fishermen. Many of these fishermen have fished for generations for lobsters and crabs in some of these areas. We should be debating what controls are to be given, by way of this schedule, to the river purification boards vis-à-vis consents to determine what pesticides should be used to deal with certain problems faced by salmon fish farmers.
I have much sympathy for the problems faced by fish farmers and their employees. In no way do I wish to see them come to any harm because of interventions by people like me. Nevertheless, major problems arise for traditional fishermen from the use of certain pesticides.

Mr. Home Robertson: I think that my hon. Friend will find that the regulating authorities for fish farms in sea lochs are the Crown Estate Commissioners who, of course, are not subject to a range of laws. It would be useful to know whether the controls in the Bill will apply to them. In many instances, they are above the law.

Dr. Godman: If ever I were fortunate enough to take my place in a Scottish parliament, one of the first things that I would want to see would be the Crown Estate Commissioners being put out of work. They are a shadowy little group of men in Edinburgh who have colossal power over the location of fish farms. It is an untrammelled power which local authorities and river purification boards cannot control. They cannot influence to any serious extent the decision-making of that shadowy little group of men.
I want to ask the Minister another question about the schedule, relating to new section 46(1) entitled:
Operations by water authorities to remedy or forestall pollution of water".

What kind of evidence does the Minister require to be presented by the river purification boards where the use of such pesticides is a long established practice? Could a purification board instruct salmon fish farmers not to use such pesticides? New section 46(1)(b) says that a water authority would have the right to ensure that the polluters —in terms of remedying or mitigating any pollution caused by its presence in the water—restored the waters, including the fauna and flora dependent on the aquatic environment in that area, so far as practicable, to their previous state. Is the schedule giving the purification boards much greater control over the operations of those fishing farms, especially over pesticides?
I shall finish now because I know a number of hon. Members wish to hear the Minister answer the questions they have asked. It is a disgrace that we have less than an hour to debate a matter of such importance to our fishermen and others who earn their livings by way of the coastal waters. That reflects badly on the Government and displays their abiding contempt for the House.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) criticised the omission of certain provisions from the Bill. Back in June 1986 the consultation paper stated that at that time we had no plans to privatise water services in Scotland. We also said, however, in that document that a small number of the proposals should be applied to Scotland in those cases where it was important to maintain a common line with England and Wales, especially in the context of European Community obligations. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) raised that point. I tell him that notice was given on Second Reading that those measures would be introduced. The standards and procedures in the Bill —as I said at the outset—are designed to maintain a common United Kingdom position. The Commission looked to the United Kingdom to have consistent standards, and the presentation of water quality and water environmental measures in a single Bill expresses that consistency.

Mr. Sillars: I accept the Minister's point, but he has missed our point. The Bill has gone through a long process and to have an hour and a half debate at this stage on a matter of such importance is a disgrace—and the Tory Government are a disgrace.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman used his ingenuity not to engage in disruption, but to have Adjournment debates and debates on the Consolidated Fund, and actually to work the parliamentary process to raise such matters, he would have every opportunity of going into this matter in depth. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will have every opportunity to debate these matters fully.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow asked about fish farming. We believe that fish farming activities should be controlled by regional purification boards through the consent system. Because doubts have been expressed about whether the existing legislation covers them, we are proposing to insert a new definition of "trade effluent" in section 56(1) and (3) to put the matter beyond doubt. The term "premises" in section 56(3) is amplified to cover premises on land or not, so that all kinds of fish farming arrangements—for example, floating fish cages—are covered in Scotland.

Dr. Godman: rose——

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I shall not give way. I have many points to cover.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) raised sewerage problems in his constituency. I am glad to say that the capital allocation for the programme is £15·8 million in 1989–90, and priority schemes cover his own constituency at Dunbar, Musselburgh, Tranent, North Berwick, Granton, Cramond, Joppa, and South Queensferry. The matter has been considered thoroughly.
Obviously, it is important that there should be consultation as soon as possible and the provisions are based on proposals on which we consulted in 1986. COSLA was consulted and was represented on the advisory committee which prepared the draft regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) raised an important point about monitoring. There will certainly be monitoring, about which there will be no confusion. Environmental health authorities have powers—which the amendment extends—to monitor and deal with the quality of drinking water. River purification authorities have powers—also extended and improved by new clause 12—to control discharges to rivers and other waters and preserve the quality of the environment.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) raised the question of aluminium, which is obviously a serious matter on which I am not complacent. I cannot comment on the results of particular samples of water, but I understand that Strathclyde has schemes in its programme to tackle the aluminium problem in its area. I understand that the concentrations of aluminium recorded in Scotland do not indicate a severe hazard to health. We are embarking on a number of improvement programmes with which we will go ahead as quickly as is practicable.

Dr. Godman: rose——

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) spoke about capital expenditure. A number of improvements are already under way in terms of article 20 of the directive, following re-interpretation of the maximum admissible concentrations. The water authori-ties are preparing additional programmes for discussion with the Department and expenditure implications will be included.
The hon. Member for Garscadden mentioned improvement programmes and I shall certainly consider what he said about the capital grants. The cost of water, however, is not met only from the community water charge; meter charges and non-domestic water rates contribute to the cost of supplying water.

Mr. Maxton: rose——

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am sorry, I have only four minutes left and I want to answer many points.
When the European Community directive on drinking water came into operation in 1985, many treatment works already complied with the new standards. Since then improvements in more than 150 supply areas in Scotland have been completed to comply with the standards. By 1990 another 14 will have been improved and 86 out of 103 lead remedial schemes will be completed. That will leave about 64 areas still regularly failing to comply, but all of

which are expected to comply by the end of 1995 at the latest. In addition, 38 supplies are covered by derogations given in accordance with article 9 of the directive and duly notified to the Commission. Some of those are being improved, despite the fact that article 9 derogations may be given where there is no health risk and the raw water exceeds a directive limit because of the nature and the structure of the ground in the area.
I appreciate that lead in water is an important consideration. The nature of Scottish water supply sources means that we have a considerable number of drinking water supplies which are, as the hon. Member for Govan said, plumbo/solvent. That means that the characteristics of the water dissolve lead from the pipes. The water authorities have been making good progress in improving their supplies by replacement of lead pipes or by water treatment. Twenty five supplies have now been improved to comply with the directive and a further 61 are scheduled to do so by the end of the year. Those programmes are kept under constant review by the Department and the water authorities and every effort is being made to improve the remaining supplies as quickly as possible.
The Government have provided funds for housing improvement grants at a preferential rate for schemes involving lead pipe replacement and more than 45,000 grants were awarded by local authorities in the period 1982 to 1987.
We have increased the funds allocated. My right hon. and learned Friend announced last November an additional allocation for this financial year of £5·5 million for water and sewerage. Of this, £2 million was specifically for lead improvement schemes. He has announced for 1989–90 an increase of 14 per cent. over planned provision for water authorities' capital expenditure on water and sewerage.
These proposals represent an important and valuable addition to water legislation in Scotland, and I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

Control of pollution in Scotland

'Schedule [Control of Pollution in Scotland] to this Act shall have effect to make provision for Scotland in relation to the prevention of pollution of water.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we can also discuss Government amendment No. 88.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister did not answer one of the points that I raised when we were discussing the previous new clause. As he has a few seconds to spare, perhaps he will explain how much money will be given to my constituency to implement the changes that are proposed.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will look into the matter thoroughly and write to the hon. Gentleman. Alternatively, I will willingly meet him if he wishes to come to see me to discuss the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

It being Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [6 February] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question on a new clause moved by a member of the Government.

New Clause 10

Impersonation of persons exercising powers of entry

`—(1) A person who, without having been designated or authorised for the purpose by a relevant authority, purports to be entitled to enter any premises or vessel in exercise of a power exercisable in pursuance of any such designation or authorisation shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

(2) For the purposes of this section it shall be immaterial, where a person purports to be entitled to enter any premises or vessel, that the power which that person purports to be entitled to exercise does not exist or would not be exercisable even if that person had been designated or authorised by a relevant authority.

(3) In this section "relevant authority" means the Authority or any water undertaker or sewerage undertaker.'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought-up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Reduction of pollution and allocation of cost

`.—(1) Chapter I of Part III of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of controlling and reducing pollution in rivers and other sources of water in England and Wales.

(2) In the exercise of their functions under the said Chapter, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and of the Authority to ensure that in all reasonable circumstances the person who causes any pollution of a river or other water source, whether that person is a body corporate, water or sewage undertaker or an individual, shall bear the cost of remedying that pollution and of taking steps to prevent any recurrence.".—[Dr. Cunningham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to take at the same time the following:

New Clause 2

Separation of environmental functions from water supply and sewerage services, and contracting-out of functions.

`.—(1) Part I of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of establishing as separate functions the preservation of the environment in respect of rivers, and the supply of water and sewerage services.

(2) Functions relating to the preservation of the environment in respect of rivers and other water resources in England and Wales shall from the transfer date be the responsibility of the body created under section 1(1) below.

(3) Functions relating to the supply of water and of sewerage services in an area shall, in accordance with transfer arrangements under section 3 below, become from the transfer date the responsibility of any water or sewerage undertaker appointed for that area in accordance with section 10(1) below.

(4) The body established under section 1 below shall not sub-contract, or otherwise cause or enable to be carried out,

any of its functions to any person who is for the time being, or has been in the previous five years, a water or sewerage undertaker within the terms of this section.

(5) Where the body established under section 1 below intends to cause or enable any of its functions to be carried out by another person, whether by means of tender or otherwise, it shall first give reasonable notice to such local authority or authorities as the case may be within whose area or areas the proposed activity falls for the purpose of according them the oppportunity of carrying out that activity."

New Clause 15

Duty of the National Rivers Authority to publish Plan for Water and the Environment

`( )—(1) The National Rivers Authority shall prepare and publish a plan in respect of the matters identified in subsection (2) below, for the purposes of the effective carrying out of its functions and, in particular, of promoting the cleanliness of water and the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment in relation to rivers.

(2) The Plan published under subsection (1) above shall include information on and as appropriate measures in respect of—

(a) the state of cleanliness of waters in England and Wales, including their chemical quality and levels of compliance with notified water quality objectives;
(b) discharges of sewage effluents and trade effluents in breach of consent levels and the monitoring of compliance in respect of all such consents;
(c) the prescription by the Authority of precautions to be taken by specified persons for the prevention of pollution;
(d) a programme of works and operations to prevent, remedy, or mitigate pollution;
(e) levels of charges to be imposed by the Authority on persons in respect of discharges and the creation of pollution;
(f) the conservation and enhancement of sites of natural beauty or amenity, and the conservation of flora and fauna;
(g) the preservation and promotion of public access to waters in areas of natural beauty or amenity, and their use for recreational purposes;
(h) the conservation, redistribution and augmentation of water resources;
(i)the general supervision of land drainage and flood protection including a programme of works on designated main rivers and sea defences;
(j) the conservation, maintenance, improvement and development of salmon, trout, freshwater and eel fisheries in inland waters; and,
(k) the carrying out of navigation, conservancy and harbour authority functions.'.

New Clause 20

Vesting of land and duties of the Authority with respect to land

'( )—(1) Any land owned by a water authority before the transfer date shall on that date vest in the National Rivers Authority.

(2) The other property, rights and liabilities of those authorities shall be divided between the Authority and the successor companies in accordance with schemes made under Schedule 2 to this Act.

(3) The Authority shall in the case of any land in respect of which it creates a lease or other interest, attach and enforce such covenants or other restrictions as it considers necessary for the purpose of ensuring that no use of, or development upon, the land may occur where such a use or development would be likely to cause harm to the environment, flora and fauna, beauty or amenity, contained within the limits of any such land.

(4) The Authority shall, in respect of any lease or interest in land transferred to it, attach such restrictions as shall prevent the sale or transfer of any such interest to a third party except with the consent of the Authority.'.

Amendment No. 139, in clause 3, page 3, line 35, after `property', insert 'other than land'.

Amendment No. 140, in clause 3, page 3, line 36, at end insert—
`(1A) The property (other than land), rights and liabilities allocated to the successor companies in accordance with subsection (1)(b)(i) above shall be those which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State on the advice of the Director or the Authority as appropriate, are required for the fulfilment by the undertakers of their duties under the provisions of this Act and the terms of any appointment made under Chapter 1 of Part II below.'.

Dr. Cunningham: This series of new clauses would represent a major amendment of this part of the Bill. They aim significantly to strengthen the environmental protection aspects of the Bill and to enhance the role and duties of the National Rivers Authority.
I wish to make it clear at the outset that we recognise the need for changes in environmental law, duties and safeguards, and in that sense we have always said that we would not oppose the principle of the National Rivers Authority. But, like many people and bodies, including the Select Committee on the Environment, we regard the proposals in the Bill as too weak, too vague and too incoherent ever to provide the rigorous environmental protection that we believe to be necessary.
New clause 1 addresses the need to reduce pollution and properly to allocate the costs. In other words, it is concerned with the principle of the polluter paying. It says:
it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and the Authority to ensure that in all reasonable circumstances the person who causes any pollution of a river or other water source, whether that person is a body corporate, water or sewage undertaker or an individual, shall bear the cost of remedying that pollution and of taking steps to prevent any recurrence.
New clause 2 seeks the separation of environmental functions from water supply and sewage services and of contracting out functions.
New clause 15 places wide-ranging new duties on the National Rivers Authority, in particular the duty to publish a plan for water and the environment.
New clause 20 deals with the vesting of land and the duties of the authority in relation to the vast land holdings —approaching 500,000 acres—currently in the ownership and control of the regional water authorities and, therefore, in public ownership.
These changes are necessary because we believe the Bill to be weak, and deliberately so; to be confused about objectives; and to be incoherent and incapable of ever creating an effective framework within which to safeguard the environment. Indeed, in several respects the Government's proposals lay some of our most precious environment open to commercial exploitation.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): A terrible thought!

Dr. Cunningham: Apparently, that is not a terrible thought to the right hon. Gentleman. It is a terrible thought to Opposition Members and to many millions of people in the country. Indeed, as I have said before, I know of no other nation which is putting huge areas of its national parks up for sale and, therefore, at the mercy of

predatory developers and potential exploitation. That is what the right hon. Gentleman's proposals do, and I shall come later to that aspect of the matter.
As the Secretary of State seems to think that this view is not widely shared, I refer him to a recent report of the Select Committee on the Environment. In its second report on toxic waste published on 22 February 1989, the Committee endorsed the Labour party's policy on and view about the need to create a more comprehensive environmental protection agency than is envisaged in the Secretary of State's proposals for the National Rivers Authority. On page 12 of that report, in paragraph 9, the Committee said:
We had hoped that this national body might be the same national body which we had previously recommended he created to regulate river pollution. However, in setting up the National Rivers Authority, the Government have treated it as a residuary authority to receive a variety of functions, each in itself extremely important. Our aim is to establish a national regulatory body which would assume responsibility for integrated pollution control and evolve 'into a full-blown environmental protection agency or Commission. The Government may still be in time to amend the Water Bill to take account of these views and lay the ground for the future expansion of the National Rivers Authority. Bui we do understand the difficulties of a sudden change of course.
That is precisely what we are proposing. We say that those general conclusions of the Select Committee should be written into this legislation., Indeed, it is necessary to have more wide-ranging and rigorous safeguards because even the Prime Minister is not aware of the state of affairs over which she presides.
I say that because it is interesting to see what the Prime Minister said in a "Nature" interview on 2 March last when questioned by Michael Buerk of the BBC. I quote from the transcript of the programme:
Is it right for a developed country like the United Kingdom at the end of the 20th century to be disposing of something like 6 million tonnes of sewage sludge in the waters around that country? You said"—
referring to what the Prime Minister had said—
'It's treated sewage of course, it's not untreated. It's treated.
Mr. Buerk then said:
We also have a lot of outfalls that take raw sewage into the sea and are still building them.
The Prime Minister replied:
Well, it should be treated sewage that goes out, treated all of it … I think you'll find that it's treated sewage in this country.
That showed the appalling ignorance of the Prime Minister about the state of affairs which prevails. I am anxious to emphasise how completely in error that statement by the Prime Minister was. With impeccable timing today, the Secretary of State for Wales, a member of the Cabinet, confirmed in a written answer the state of affairs in Wales on sewage outfalls to the sea. He said:
The number of outfalls with no treatment is 90. The number of sewage outfalls relying on tidal storage schemes"—
that is, with no treatment—
is 23. The number of sewage outfalls where there is preliminary screened and/or macerated treatment only is 53. The number of sewage outfalls with primary treatment is 29. The number with secondary treatment is 61.
In other words, 65 per cent. of all the sewage outfalls on the coast of Wales have no treatment process of any kind. That is how much the Prime Minister knows about the state of the environment in Britain.
I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment exactly the same question about the situation in England. Unlike his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for


Wales, he has refused to give the answer, no doubt to cover up his and the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister's embarrassment about this matter.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Since the burden of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that he would like to see higher standards, I presume that he accepts that that will obviously cost more money. The Government have a system for bringing that about. The hon. Gentleman is bringing forward some amendments which would make life even more complicated and bureaucratic. He is asking for even higher standards, which of course will cost even more money. Can he tell the House how much he believes that these new clauses would cost, first, British industry and, secondly, the National Rivers Authority?

Dr. Cunningham: I am willing to set out all the answers to all those questions in a speech which I shall be making in a few weeks' time. But, yes, I agree that these things will cost money, and a great deal of money, and that the British people will need to pay. I also believe that, overwhelming-ly, they are willing to pay. It is not necessary to sell off the nation's water resources to achieve these objectives. The British people recognise that quite clearly and in overwhelming numbers, as they continue to demonstrate.

Sir Anthony Grant: rose——

Mr. David Ashby: rose——

Dr. Cunningham: No, I am not giving way. Sit down. I am answering the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).
The British people are not willing either to pay unnecessary charges such as those set out by the West Kent statutory water company when it announced a 42 per cent. increase for consumers, half of which, it pointed out, was due directly to the cost of privatisation, or to accept unnecessary additional costs to pay for dividends and high directors' fees, salaries and expenses, because they regard that as irrelevant to the need to improve and enhance the water environment of this country.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister was obviously not aware that when raw sewage is discharged even through long sea outfalls at the south Wales coast, where there are many popular tourist beaches, it goes into the Bristol channel and the Greater Severn estuary and then enters that same body of water, 5 cubic km of sea water, that swishes up and down the channel twice a day, so that it has now become one of the world's largest flush lavatories? The volume of sewage that it takes is not discharged into the open ocean because, by and large, it is the same body of water that goes up and down the channel; therefore, the sewage is not dispersed into the ocean.

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Prime Minister, after her speech in Scarborough on Saturday, had walked out of the Spa hall and looked at the beach and the sea in front of her she would have seen the outfall discharging untreated raw sewage into the marine environment. It is a pity that she so averts her gaze from the reality of environmental pollution in Britain that she cannot see what is obvious to so many people.

Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman discloses a rather worrying state of affairs in Wales. I accept that and I think that all my hon. Friends would accept it. But that discloses that there has been a lack of investment over the years. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the level of investment was in the 1970s when the Labour Government were in power? Will he point out that it went down 50 per cent. under the Labour Government, that there was 50 per cent. less investment?

Dr. Cunningham: I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures at constant prices. The water authorities' capital expenditure in England and Wales set out the figures in water statistics. The average during the five years of Labour government from 1974 to 1979 was £1,344 million per year, and the average in the period of Conservative government has been £1,014 million—lower than in the five years of Labour Government during a period, apparently, of economic success.
7.15 pm
We know what is happening on the Conservative Benches. Hon. Gentlemen are unwilling to strengthen the environmental protection safeguards in this Bill because they realise that it will create a huge dilemma for the private enterprise monopolies they seek to create. They are planning to cosset those private enterprise monopolies. The Secretary of State has already, unprecedentedly, guaranteed them immunity from prosecution. That is an on-the-record statement. We know, because of our possession of the leaked memorandum from Mr. Michael Carney, the secretary of the Water Authorities Association —[Laughter.] That is true. We know only because it was leaked; he was telling a different story in public from the one he was telling in private. I do not see what hon. Gentlemen find so funny about that; it is a statement of the truth. Mr. Carney said:
Any further strengthening of the regulatory framework now put forward would have significantly adverse consequences for the successful management of the privatised [water] companies.
That is why the Government have rejected all attempts to strengthen the provisions in the Bill to safeguard the environment and enhance the role of the NRA.

Sir Anthony Grant: The hon. Gentleman has not really addressed himself to the question quite rightly posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). He has come to the House with a series of new clauses and a determination to strengthen the Bill, but he must tell the House what additional cost there will be. It is no good his saying he will make a speech about it at some obscure place in three weeks' time. The House wants to know now. Surely he has not put forward these proposals without doing some arithmetic. If he has done his arithmetic, will he let us know what it is?

Dr. Cunningham: I have a copy of the Tory Central Office brief about this as well. Since the hon. Gentleman fleetingly shows an interest in these matters, I have to tell him that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can only guess at the number of billions of pounds that it will cost to make the necessary improvements, and we are in a similar position. My guess is that the Secretary of State's proposals have no hope of reaching fruition under private enterprise. So, if the hon. Gentleman wants more precise figures, perhaps he would ask his right hon. Friend to give the House more precise figures so that we can all enjoy the


debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "He does not know."] That is true. That is what I have said, and, what is more, the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend does not know either.
We need to recognise that pollution cannot be controlled, our rivers and other water resources cannot be protected from further pollution and the existing polluted rivers, streams, brooks and ponds will remain polluted and dead if financial resources are not devoted to them. The purpose of the new clause is to make it a primary responsibility of the NRA to control the pollution as the first step and then to start reducing the pollution of our water resources.
The aim of new clause 2 is to expose, as it does quite clearly, one of the most blatant flaws in the Government's case. It shows that the existing situation whereby the water authorities police themselves in respect of pollution is wrong. That is what the Goverment say, and we agree. They omit to say that the status quo results from Conservative Government legislation in the first place. The Government claim that the Bill will—to use the Secretary of State's phrase—separate the poachers from the gamekeepers. However, he neglects to emphasise that the National Rivers Authority can and, as Ministers have admitted, will contract back many of its functions—including regulatory ones—to the private water plcs. That will take place principally because the NRA will have inadequate resources to perform all the functions itself.
Far from freeing these constraints from the public sector borrowing requirement—which the Secretary of State has always argued is one of the fundamental reasons for them—the proposals leave the financing of the National Rivers Authority fairly and squarely in Treasury control.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman say, with regard to the problem of contracting back, whether the duties imposed on the National Rivers Authority by the Bill will be waived—or diluted—by any contracting which the authorities may decide upon for sensible operational or other reasons?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, it will be weakened because it will not be independent. Any work done by the very organisations that are supposed to be policed, monitored and controlled will be less than satisfactory. That is the point that I have been making, and I stand by it.

Mr. Boswell: I must press the hon. Gentleman on this point. Certain general duties have been laid on the authority by the Bill. If the authority chooses to contract out of certain of those functions, will the duties be in any way amended or reduced?

Dr. Cunningham: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the now infamous quotation of Mr. Keith Court, the chairman of the South West water authority, who said that after privatisation it would be the responsibility of his managers and scientists "to outwit the regulators". Those are the circumstances that we face.

Mr. Ashby: That is not an answer at all.

Dr. Cunningham: It is.
New clause 15 would lay a duty on the NRA to prepare and publish a national plan for the promotion of clean river water and the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment. Specifically, it would require the NRA to do so in respect of


(a) the state of cleanliness of waters in England and Wales, including their chemical quality and levels of compliance with notified water quality objectives;
(b) discharges of sewage effluents and trade effluents in breach of consent levels and the monitoring of compliance in respect of all such consents;
(c) the prescription by the Authority of precautions to be taken by specified persons for the prevention of pollution;
(d) a programme of works and operations to prevent, remedy, or mitigate pollution;
(e) levels of charges to be imposed by the Authority on persons in respect of discharges and the creation of pollution;
(f) the conservation and enhancement of sites of natural beauty or amenity, and the conservation of flora and fauna;
(g) the preservation and promotion of public access to waters in areas of natural beauty or amenity, and their use for recreational purposes;
(h) the conservation, redistribution and augmentation of water resources;
(i) the general supervision of land drainage and flood protection including a programme of works on designated main rivers and sea defences;
(j) the conservation, maintenance, improvement and development of salmon, trout, freshwater and eel fisheries in inland waters; and,
(k) the carrying out of navigation, conservancy and harbour authority functions".

In other words, new clause 15 makes the National Rivers Authority a far more comprehensive and wide-ranging environmental protection agency than is envisaged by the Secretary of State.
New clause 20 would transfer all the land of the existing water authorities to the National Rivers Authority, ensuring that it remained in public ownership and control. It would similarly transfer buildings, machinery and other rights, where necessary on operational grounds, so that they could be leased to the companies. The land could be leased back to water undertakers where necessary for their functions. No development on, or use of, the land would be permitted which damaged the environment, and no interest in land could be sold by the lessee without the consent of the National Rivers Authority.
The Government's proposals contain no justification of why the freehold of all the land currently in public ownership—owned by water authorities—should be sold. Technically, plcs would only need control over the necessary rights to fulfil their statutory responsibilities, which might include rights of access to land, right of water gathering and abstraction. The transfer of the freehold opens up the possibility of land exploitation and development, which runs counter to the best interests of land management and conservation.
The code of practice under which the Government claim that public interest is to be protected does not apply to subsidiary companies that will undoubtedly be created by water plcs.

Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman wants all the land to be vested in the NRA, what is there to stop the NRA from developing it as it surely should in order to maximise its assets?

Dr. Cunningham: Because that is not the duty of the NRA, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, will not have development powers. The aim of our amendment is to safeguard our national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sensitive habitats from development. That is what people concerned with the countryside and


our natural heritage overwhelmingly want to see. They do not want to see what the Government propose, which is——

Mr. Ashby: rose——

Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall not give way. The people do not want to see what the Government are proposing allowing or what, with a wink and a nod, they are hinting at to beef up interest in the flotation of the water industry —which is that people can make a quick buck by selling off land or developing or changing its use and using it for other commercial purposes.

Mr. Marlow: rose——

Dr. Cunningham: I shall give way in a moment. I wish to develop this point because it is important.

Mr. Ridley: It is a rotten point.

Dr. Cunningham: I wonder whether the Secretary of State has had the benefit of re-reading recently the letter of 6 February 1989 of his Minister of State to Mr. Jack Jeffrey, the chairman of the Statutory Water Companies Association. In the letter, the Minister of State refers to pathetic failed attempts to keep down price increases in the statutory water companies. He says that by agreeing to increases of 22 per cent. on average—three times the inflation rate—he has actually saved consumers money. That is a preposterous and pathetic claim.
In his letter, the Minister laid bare the Government's ideas about all this. Talking about ways of trying to avoid price increases and costs, he said:
These should come out of dividends or reserves or proceeds of asset sales".
There is no doubt about the Government's view. They are encouraging people to realise the assets that they will acquire after flotation—if a successful flotation ever takes place. People in the City know that very well. A brief on the future of the water industry has been prepared by Seymour Pierce Butterfield Ltd. It was written by Mr. Nigel Hawkins, who, when approached by a research assistant in my office today, declined to talk to her on the ground that it might get him into trouble. I am not sure what he meant by that, but it turns out that he is an aspiring Conservative parliamentary candidate.
7.30 pm
As Mr. Hawkins was unwilling to discuss his proposals in the document, I shall mention a couple which are germane to this part of the debate. Referring to land and assets, Mr. Hawkins writes:
Given the heavy dependence of Water Authorities upon their `core' activities, it will be extremely difficult for most to expand the `non core' sector at anything like an acceptable rate … To compensate for this expected shortfall in growth, some Water Authorities with significant amounts of surplus land may well realise sizeable capital gains by selling it.
He goes on to speculate about exactly who will be interested in acquiring assets in such a way:
Companies in the chemical, waste disposal and heavy construction sectors might find particular attractions in bidding for privatised Water Authorities.
There is no doubt in the City about the opportunities for exploitation in the proposals. They are vast, and they threaten much of our most priceless national heritage.
For all those reasons—because of the need to strengthen the Bill and to remove the gaping holes, weaknesses and inadequacies—I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I know that time is short, but I must say that I find much to commend in new clause 1. It attacks the basic problem of pollution, about which—and about the source of which—there is much anxiety. The new clause imposes a direct duty on the Secretary of State to ensure not only that a National Rivers Authority is set up but that those who pollute our rivers and coastlines are held responsible and have to pay to put matters right. That strikes me as entirely acceptable.
I speak from some personal experience. Although Torbay's beaches are regarded as some of the best in Europe and have received prizes, I am afraid that the same cannot be said of South West water. I very much doubt that it would win any prizes in a European contest. Parts of the north Devon coastline are quite simply a disgrace—and, indeed, a health hazard where there are short outfalls into the sea.
When people talk about treated or untreated sewage, they often use the term "macerated". It is not generally known that maceration is no more than a mincing process—by and large, the material is untreated and its strength is not bacteriologically reduced. It is a vile experience for people to go swimming and come across sewage, whether macerated or not. New clause 1 would go some way to improving the current position.
In my constituency, just off the coastline, there is a beauty spot called Thatcher Rock, a popular site for divers. I know that we are urged to wear condoms as frequently as possible, but the experience reported to me by divers of emerging off Thatcher Rock with condoms on their heads is pretty unpleasant. I also consider it entirely unacceptable that 27 per cent. of all sewage sludge is disposed of at sea. It is said that the position will have been improved by 1995, but that is six years too late for me.
I am concerned about Devon's position for two reasons. First, since 1980–81 our water rates have risen by just over 90 per cent. It is currently proposed that they should rise again by a staggering 13 per cent., which I believe to be the largest increase in the country. Two messages come back to me—first, that such increases are entirely unacceptable and an appalling burden on water rate payers and, secondly, that they are an indication of crisis management in the past, particularly at the time of the 1974–79 Administration. We know from the figures that in that period capital investment was cut dramatically —and capital investment, surely, is the key.
What is the capital structure for the new water authorities? Will there be a continuing burden on water rate payers? A scheme that has commended itself to me is one advocated in the Financial Times—a diversion of flotation revenue during privatisaton to the water companies rather than the Treasury. I accept that the Bill does not cover that, but I nevertheless regret that it was not considered because it would have got us off a particularly unpleasant political hook. Certainly capital is the key to the future—we cannot expect high standards without a satisfactory level of capital investment. The answer, in my view, would have been to allow the flotation revenue to go to the companies to provide a satisfactory capital basis. That would have been a neat solution and, I think, widely acceptable, along the lines of the TSB flotation. I am not


arguing against the principle of privatisation, which I have always advocated strongly. No doubt the Secretary of State is gazing into his crystal ball and will tell us that it means more efficiency in the future. I know, too, that the NRA will be an important development.
Let me indulge in one of my occasional lapses into a history lesson. I remind the House that, when the water assets were taken over by the Government as a trustee, undertakings were given—not only about debt—implying that the Government would continue to look after those assets, which would be managed on behalf of the boroughs that had previously owned them. My constituency contained a particularly impressive water system, with two reservoirs. In some respects we are in competition with Bournemouth, which has retained a private sector system and where water rates are about 40 per cent. below those of Torbay. That, of course, is an argument in favour of private companies and privatisation.
It may well be too late to consider any diversion of the funds realised from the flotation to the water companies and not to the Treasury, which we know from the Budget is brimming over with funds and does not need the money. I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that after privatisation there should not be a continuing burden on the water rate payers, and that there should be a proper capital structure for the industry so that we are not burdened with further rate increases. I remind the House that the water rate increases in Devon have been just over 90 per cent. since 1981, and that the current increase, which my constituents consider totally unacceptable, is just over 13 per cent. I hope that the Secretary of State will provide that assurance and give great relief to the people of Devon.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The group of amendments and new clauses that we are debating touch on some important fundamental issues. Despite the many hours that we have spent debating the Bill, we are still far from satisfied that it contains adequate safeguards to protect the environment. Our fears are fully justified by the post that we continue to receive from organisations representing those involved in conservation, access to the countryside and other interests which still do not believe that the Government have got the Bill right.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) touched on some vital matters. It is a pity that he was not on the Committee considering the Bill as he could have made some important contributions to those debates. He is absolutely right to say that even if the necessary safeguards were written into the Bill—we very much doubt that they are, which is why we have tabled new clauses and amendments—the problems could not be resolved without capital investment. That raises the argument as to whether the public sector or the private sector is better able to raise capital.
It is important that the National Rivers Authority should have sufficient powers and use them to deal with such matters. There is fear that that will not be done because it requires massive investment from the private sector. We can envisage that, having invested in the shares, the private sector will not be prepared to deal with the problems of pollution, sewage works, or the transfer of sewage out to sea. The money may not be available because investment in such basic requirements will not necessarily provide an adequate profit or return.
My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred to the Select Committee report on toxic waste. I served on that Select Committee which agreed that the National Rivers Authority should have been the basis of creating an environmental protection agency. I believe that the Secretary of State would do better to ignore the privatisation clauses of the Bill that we are to debate later, and allow us to have a constructive debate on how to make part I work in a positive way. That would be welcomed in the House and by many interested organisations. I hope that the Secretary of State will think again, although that is unlikely. I hope that he will recognise that there is genuine concern on the issues raised in the amendments and new clauses that we are discussing.
New clause 20 deals with the ownership of the land and suggests that it should be vested in the National Rivers Authority. We recognise that under the Bill as drafted the water authorities will become pies and decide what is and is not operational land and will be able to dispose of the non-operational land. Historically, the water authorities own a great deal of land in towns and city centres that easily could be designated non-operational and could be disposed of, with large amounts of profit accruing to the privatised water authorities. More important still, the water authorities own land in areas such as the Lake district, the Peak district and, in my constituency, the Pennines, Worsthorne moor and many water catchment areas surrounding Burnley and other towns on both sides of the Pennines.
7.45 pm
The water authorities own acres of valuable land which are water catchment areas but are easily designated as non-operational. If a water authority were to dispose of some of that land to raise money to fund some necessary work, it would cause tremendous damage to our heritage in many of the most beautiful areas of the country. We do not want that to happen, so we believe that new clause 20 should be added to the Bill. Many organisations take that view. The North West Council for Sport and Recreation sent me a fairly long brief expressing those fears. It says:
We consider that the Water Bill, when enacted, will represent a major threat to recreational interests".
It goes on to discuss the status of land sold off or not directly related to the water supply. It feels that land will be disposed of, that we shall destroy our heritage, remove recreational facilities, and access to the countryside will be lost. It goes into great detail as to why it takes such a view.
The Burnley borough council planning officer, Mr. Andrew Walker, has written a detailed letter to the Secretary of State expressing similar fears about the code of practice and the ownership of land, with particular reference to the catchment areas. He stresses that not all the land will be alongside a river and that in moorlands and other areas there will not be a river in the immediate vicinity, but it is important that those moorlands should be retained for public access and to protect the birds and animals in their natural habitat. He explained why the Government have got it wrong, and that one acceptable improvement would be for the Government to accept new clause 20.
The Greater Manchester countryside unit also expressed concern. Locally and nationally anglers have written expressing their concern about the future ownership of the land. I hope that the Secretary of State recognises that the Bill as drafted raises great fears that the


land will be developed. Even if only small sections of the Peak district or the Lake district are sold off and developed for exclusive housing, which will be extremely valuable, the whole nature of such areas and our heritage will be destroyed.
It is no use Ministers saying that this will be dealt with by planning laws. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee read submission after submission and saw evidence from many organisations demonstrating that there were not sufficient planning safegurds to deal with possible development.
On new clause 1, it has been said that the polluters should pay. I agree that polluters should be made to pay more for the problems of agricultural or industrial pollution, and we have to consider that.
It is not good enough that new sewage treatment works are being built at Bootle, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), to deal with the sewage from Manchester, which will go along a pipeline instead of by sludge boat along the ship canal, and to deal with the sludge from the Liverpool area, because when those works become fully operational they will merely take sludge out into the Irish sea and dump it. We need more thought and investment to deal with such problems.
The North West water authority is extending the sewage pipe at Rossall near Fleetwood and dumping sewage a little further out into the Irish sea. The hon. Member for Torbay made the point that the coast of Devon is not suitable for swimming because of the sewage being pumped out into the sea. The sea at Blackpool, Morecambe and other places in the north-west is not suitable for swimming, either.
The amendments are positive improvements to the Bill. The Government must recognise that the Bill contains too many loopholes to deal with pollution, river quality, sewage treatment works or drinking water quality. If more safeguards are not written into the Bill, we know that the Government will make exceptions, give derogations and extend the periods of time for compliance. Drinking water quality and river quality will not be dealt with and we shall have pollution for many years. Those are the reasons why I hope that the Government will be prepared to move in a positive way for the first time and show that they want genuinely to ensure that the Water Bill protects our environment in a better way than it does at present.

Mr. Robert Adley: I hope that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) will forgive me if I do not follow him, but I want to be brief. In principle, I am relaxed and fairly happy about the Bill. One of my constituents wrote to me yesterday, accusing the Government of being about to poison him through the Bill. What he did not seem to realise was that he is, and always has been, a customer of a private water company. I was thus able to reassure him that, whatever the problems about the legislation, he could rest easy.
I support new clause 1. I have a reasonable track record on pollution and I believe that we must be seen to be serious in the Bill about giving the National Rivers Authority the teeth and powers to ensure that pollution is controlled. In 1979, when the Merchant Shipping Bill was in Committee, I managed to persuade Committee members of all parties to amend the Bill so that when

dealing with oil pollution at sea the owner of the oil rather than the carrier of the oil would be made responsible for any pollution at sea. That concentrated the minds of the oil companies no end, but because of the collapse of the Government led by the present Lord Callaghan, I was threatened that we might lose the entire Bill if I was not willing to withdraw the amendment at the truncated Report stage on the Floor of the House. The proposition that pollution must be paid for by those who create it is thus a long-held view of mine. I hope that, even if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot accept the amendments, he will consider as the Bill proceeds whether to accept any reasonable proposal that comes forward to ensure——

Mr. Ridley: I am delighted to meet my hon. Friend's point. The two points contained in new clause 1 are already amply and fully covered in the Bill. New clause 1 is wholly unnecessary, so my hon. Friend can vote against it with complete equanimity.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I told the Chief Whip some weeks ago that I was especially concerned about the National Rivers Authority, so he would be disappointed if I did not vote in favour of new clause 1. I do not want to detain the House indefinitely, but I must point out that from time to time my right hon. Friend and I have taken common cause on certain issues. However, I had better do as I said and vote in favour of new clause 1, while registering the fact that, in principle, I am happy with most of the other provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Wigley: The contributions made by Conservative Members have been much more encouraging on Report than in Committee. I suspect that there was careful selection of those chosen to serve on the Committee. There has been a breath of fresh air in the speeches made by the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and for Torbay (Mr. Allason). The matter of concern to them and to all of us is how to upgrade standards on pollution. Those of us who represent maritime constituencies are very much aware of the large distance that we have to go to reach EC standards. The fact that they are European standards is neither here nor there because we ought to be insisting on them ourselves. As we come to the end of the 20th century, our standards should be well ahead of their present levels.
The Secretary of State tried to give assurances that those points were met by the Bill, but had he been in Committee he would know that week after week we were far from convinced that the Bill was sufficiently rigorous and, more fundamentally, that we were far from convinced that adequate financial resources would be provided to undertake the job that is so desperately needed.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) spoke about the proportion of sewage outfalls in Wales —he said that it was 65 per cent.—discharging untreated sewage. That caused considerable concern in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs when we looked into the question a couple of years ago. That Committee produced a far-reaching report which was supported by hon. Members of all parties, but regrettably the overwhelming majority of its main recommendations have still not been implemented. Many of them come back to the question of finance. What was disturbing to the Committee was to understand that when the implications of the Bill were hitting home to those who might have to find the finance


for privatisation, the doubts began to emerge—so much so that the leading story in the Financial Times on Monday 6 February, under the headline:
Water privatisation rules make industry 'less attractive'", 
said:
The Government's water privatisation plans were in disarray last night as ministers faced threats of increases in charges of up to 50 per cent. from statutory water companies. Industry leaders also warned of a significant drawback in privatisation legislation that would make the water authorities much less attractive to investors.
The industry's problems, which are becoming a major embarrassment to the Government, flow from the huge capital investment programme required to meet the increasingly stringent European Commission Regulations on drinking water quality, cleaner beaches and more effective sewage treatment.
That is the guts of the case.
Obviously, as hon. Members have pointed out, costs will be involved in improvements. Last Thursday, at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged the extent of those costs. The question is whether the costs can be met from the privatisation structure.On 28 November 1988, the Secretary of State said that water charges might increase by between 7·5 per cent. and 12·5 per cent. in real terms in the decade following privatisation. It is not credible that increases of up to 12·5 per cent. over 10 years would generate sufficient resources to undertake the capital investment programme needed to upgrade our sewage treatment and water outfalls. Conservative Members taunt the Opposition by saying that we do not face up to the cost of our demands, but we do. All Opposition Members face up to that cost. We are prepared to see that cost funded either from general taxation or from public sector borrowing, whichever may be more appropriate.

Mr. Tim Boswell: What would the basic rate of income tax have to be to fund any proportion of the environmental programme that has been suggested by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends?

8 pm

Mr. Wigley: I cannot comment on the environmental programme put forward by the Labour Front Bench because I am not privy to the details of that, but I know that Wales needs a capital investment programme of about £90 million year by year to meet the standards looked for by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. I also know that last year Welsh Water's retained profit was about £27 million and, even if all interest were written off, would barely generate another £50 million, so there is a shortfall of between £20 million and £30 million in Wales in terms of the capital injection needed. The shortfall would be nearer £50 million to reach EC standards. If that is multiplied by 20 for the United Kingdom, we may be talking of a shortfall of £1,000 million. If it helps the hon. Gentleman, that shortfall could be met by 1p on income tax. I would be more than happy to see 1p on income tax to reach those standards.
The Opposition accept that such improvements have to be paid for one way or another, but do the Government accept that? It is not credible for the Government to say that those standards can be reached with an increase of no more than 12·5 per cent. in real terms over 10 years. Funding is central to the problems facing a maritime constituency such as mine, sticking out into the Irish sea,

which is one of the most polluted seas in the world. It is not acceptable to go into the next century with the kind of standards that we have at present. Wales has to deal not only with maritime pollution but with the effects of both older and modern industrial pollution. In many instances, it does not seem to be making much headway.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) will be aware of the pollution of the river Taff. I saw the hon. Gentleman just before the rugby match on Saturday. I was travelling down from Pontyprydd to Cardiff. Looking at the river, very little progress seems to have been made in the past 15 years. I do not criticise the Welsh water authority, which is undertaking important work, but this underlines the work that we still have to do, and which has to be paid for one way or another, whether from general taxation or by the polluter. [Interruption.] It is all very well Conservative Members heckling, but if we are to achieve the necessary standards, we must find a way to pay for that. I am convinced that that is not possible under the privatisation structures which have been proposed. It is not possible with the 12·5 per cent. ceiling to which the Secretary of State referred. If Conservative Members say that that 12·5 per cent. increase is wrong and that we need a 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. increase in real terms for such a level of funding over the next decade, the sums would add up—but they are not saying that.

Mr. Rowlands: The situation is not made easier by the fact that the private companies will also have to pay dividends.

Mr. Wigley: That is the whole point. If the Welsh water authority is to give a return of 10 per cent. on capital, assuming that its assets, with a current cost of £1,700 million, are to be given away for, say, £300 million—a figure that has been bandied around—with £1,400 million being written off, a profit of £30 million is still needed to give a 10 per cent. return. That is a higher profit than at present. All the profit will go on that and there will be that much less to meet the capital programme that is needed.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the difficulties in his pan of the world, as in mine, has been the short-term nature of the water industry in the past 20 years? Each year the water industry has had to spend within the capital constraints put on it by the Government. Under the new arrangements, water companies will be able to act like any private company and go out into the market, borrow the money that they need and invest it in cleaning up all the beaches about which the hon. Gentleman is so worried.

Mr. Wigley: Of course I should have been delighted to see the water industry, like many other industries, investing money over the past decade, particularly in a period of high unemployment. There should have been much greater investment in the capital infrastructure—for example, in sewers. I regret that water authorities have been under such constraints from the Government, funding more and more of their capital investment from retained profit. That is the Government's philosophy.

Mr. Devlin: rose——

Mr. Wigley: I am still dealing with the hon. Gentleman's point.
The hon. Gentleman argues that Government constraints have created difficulties over the past decade and that the water industry will find things easier when it is privatised, but that is a non sequitur. It presupposes that after privatisation it will be possible to obtain hundreds of millions of pounds from the market, but that will be possible only if substantial interest is paid by way of loan or share capital. That means a rate of return substantially higher than the water industry is obtaining at the moment. In Wales, the rate of return at the moment is 2 per cent. We cannot get money from the market at 2 per cent.—we shall need to pay 10, 12 or 15 per cent. to get the money in for the sort of programme that is necessary.

Mr. Chris Mullin: We should also bear in mind that the first investment that the newly privatised water authorities will undertake is the cost of metering—an unnecessary expense of about £1·3 billion.

Mr. Wigley: Any such additional expenditure will come from the limited capital that is available, or more will have to be paid to attract more capital. I understand what Conservative Members say, but their arguments add up only if there is a substantial increase in the price of water. They argue that improvements should be paid for by such increases. We agree that the money is necessary, that we need the capital expenditure and that the money must come from somewhere, but we are prepared to see it coming from the public purse because it is a matter of such importance to all in our communities.

Mr. Ridley: A few minutes ago the hon. Gentleman said that he believed in the principle that the polluters should pay. In relation to sewage pollution, which demands by far the greatest proportion of expenditure, who does he think is the polluter?

Mr. Wigley: To a large extent, it is the community. That is why general taxation is so relevant. I look for a method of equitable payment for pensioners, those on low incomes, disabled people, and so on. They should not be burdened in the way that they are by the poll tax. The most reasonable way to obtain the necessary funds is through progressive taxation. The capital has to be obtained and it has to be paid for.

Mr. Alistair Burt: rose——

Mr. Wigley: I shall not give way as other hon. Members wish to speak and I have taken more time than I intended.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that over 10 years the increase in prices would be between 7·5 and 12 per cent. Does he stand by that assessment? Will he give a commitment from the Dispatch Box today that all the necessary improvements in standards in terms of the pollution of our coastal and inland waters can be paid for with no more than a 12·5 per cent. increase in real terms in the price of water between now and 1999? I suspect that he realises from what is happening in existing private companies—the way in which they have run for increases in their prices—that his proposition does not stand up.
The money will not come in because the Government's sums do not add up. That is why it is so important to have issues such as the reduction of pollution and the allocation of costs written into the Bill, as new clause 1 provides. I suspect that many Conservative Members know in their

hearts that that is the case. I hope that when the time comes to vote they will have the courage of their convictions.

Sir Giles Shaw: Having listened to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on the problems of the water industry, I cannot help but feel that for about 100 years these problems have been dodged. It is surely an industry which, probably more than any other, has failed to have any serious renewal of investment since its establishment in the opening decade of this century. The greatest development now in investment is the replacement of aging structures which have not been touched for at least 60 years. It is just the problem which the hon. Member for Caernarfon so eloquently put about how the water industry will obtain the renewal of asset capital, which is so desperately needed, which is fundamental to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's measure in this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who is no longer with us, was referring to the outfall. I remember, a few years ago, when I was in the Department over which my right hon. Friend presides with such distinction, going to Torbay to examine that outfall. I think it was in 1981. It was then a fine pumping station, built about 1908. It was all in brass, and had been converted to oil at no small cost, and was still merrily pumping the sewage of Torquay into Torbay. That is the kind of problem which exists all round the coastline to which all hon. Members refer. I recall that in Newcastle the first sewage works ever was opened in about 1983, replacing the practice of discharging completely untreated sewage into the Tyne.
So the great problem with the water industry has been a lack of interest in renewing and modernising its assets. For the vast majority of this period it was in the hands of local authorities, and it was the fact that the public purse was involved which, almost by definition, starved the water industry of assets. It is exactly the same now as it is within the national public purse, because the water industry comes at the bottom of the list of priorities from one year to the next of the state or council.
There are two simple reasons for this. First, there are very few votes in sewerage or sewerage replacement, because the public does not want to know. Secondly, there is an infantile belief that water is free and therefore cannot be charged for adequately, and there is a reluctance to disturb this happy myth. It is the disturbance of that myth and the regeneration of a drive towards capital improvement and the fairly skilful presentation in this Bill of controls balanced by liberating the assets of the authorities to obtain capital in the private sector which is the very nature of my support for the Bill.
Speaking to new clause 1 and the allied clauses moved by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I have to say to my right hon. Friend that the argument on the National Rivers Authority is utterly crucial to this whole structure. I am not a supporter of the NRA. I have never been wholly convinced that the arrangements currently in place for the whole water cycle to be managed by authorities of the kind we possess are not perfectly satisfactory for the running of the hydrological cycle and for dealing with water supply and pollution. However, my real worry about the NRA from the time when the concept was first introduced by my right hon. Friend has been that it could so easily become the mortmain of the industry and


the dead hand of Government, and the controls, the extension of influence and the manipulation of committees would mean that the water industry would not be privatised but slowly strangled.
Nothing convinces me that I am right more than new clause 1 and the allied new clauses promoted by the hon. Member for Copeland, who is no fool, never has been and probably never will be. When he seeks to increase the powers of the NRA and prays in aid the importance of pollution controls and making certain everybody pays, and so on, I get very worried indeed, because he is quite right to say that, once established, the NRA will be an absolute godsend to any Socialist Administration. Heaven forfend the day when they use the NRA as the great mortmain of Government, because it must be seen as that.
8.15 pm
The balance of this Bill at the moment is weighted too heavily towards controlling the activities of the private companies in relation to the controls applied by the NRA. However, having said that, I recognise that it is now necessary to see that it is set up efficiently and that the powers given to it over its wide remit are sufficient to discharge its responsibilities. In the case of pollution, in other portions of the Bill, clauses 103 and beyond that, there is an enormous range of powers available to the Secretary of State, the Director General of Water Services and the authority itself to do practically everything possible so that the NRA ensures that the privatised water authorities or any other polluter meets its requirements. I cannot see the need to strengthen the powers, as suggested by new clause 1.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether his proposal to leave what will now be functions of the National Rivers Authority with the water authorities will increase the possibility of privatisation being successful or make it more difficult, bearing in mind that all the functions being given to the NRA, environmentally essential functions, do not make any profit?

Sir Giles Shaw: I quite understand why the hon. Member is anxious about that. I am not advocating recasting the Bill in relation to the NRA; I am merely warning my right hon. Friends that the NRA is potentially an instrument of very great power, and I do not accept that its powers need increasing.
In relation to access to land, I find it extraordinary that hon. Gentlemen express such great concern over the disposal of land in the current ownership of the water authorities. I understand that the development of land increases its value, and there are various ways of selling such assets for the benefit of shareholders. I understand also that over the last few years the water authorities, encouraged by this Government, have been able to extend public access to their land to a quite remarkable degree. Not long ago water authorities would not allow the public anywhere near their reservoirs, and acres of land were fenced off. Now, commendably, there are many acres available for public use, provided that the public respects the fact that it is catchment land or water designated for public supply.
The vast majority of water authority land is clearly catchment land. If there is really a fear among hon. Gentlemen that catchment land has enormous develop-ment potential, they are setting at naught the planning

system. The vast majority of water authority land is already in national parks, green belt areas, areas of outstanding natural beauty and probably conservation areas too. It is ludicrous to have this phobia, when the policies of authorities have steadily developed towards marketing their catchment land for environmental purposes and to think this will suddenly be destroyed by the fact that the authorities are being privatised. It is crucial that their consumers, who pay their bills, should have access to the land which they currently enjoy. In relation to Yorkshire water authority, which I know well, there is no intention whatever to alter the existing policy of access to its catchment land. That land has the lowest possible development value and nobody will build a block of flats on Upper Wharfedale.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Yorkshire water authority is considering, for example, selling part of its land in the Tophill low reservoir for the creation of a commercial fishpond, which will go in a site of significant environmental and scientific interest, will destroy rare plants in that area and completely obliterate an area which is part of a voluntary nature reserve?

Sir Giles Shaw: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I do not know of that proposal. There will always be substantial conflicts in the conservation and environmental policies to be pursued in regard to any piece of land, particularly the aquatic environment as opposed to the catchment land, to which I referred. There will be alternative uses. There could be people who find it more beneficial for the land to be used as a fish farm than for a protection zone for flora or fauna. That is where the local office of the NRA will come in. It will be responsible for ensuring that the water authority pursues a conservation policy which is consistent with national objectives.
We can forget catchment land being on development land. Development land tends no longer to have a potential use, with redundant sewage works and things of that kind. It certainly could be development for commercial use. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend —even the hon. Member for Copeland—will consider that a redundant sewage works should be replaced by something moe profitable as soon as possible. If it is for domestic buildings or for buildings of another nature, so be it. That is a far cry from saying that the policy of disposal of land will somehow be turned on its head by water authorities trying to build flats in upper catchment areas and river valleys.

Mr. Eric Martlew: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee. He seems to deal lightly with what he calls catchment land. The area that I come from, Cumbria, includes the Lake district national park. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 45 per cent. of Lake district planning appeals are presently allowed by the Secretary of State? There would be great worries that, if large tracts of what is now water authority land become available, this Secretary of State especially will continue to give planning permission by overruling the Lake district planning board.

Sir Giles Shaw: I would be well out of order if I were to refer to planning applications in a local authority such as


Cumbria. There will be occasions when planning applications will be granted, which will cause great concern for the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Giles Shaw: I must proceed, otherwise I will exceed my time limit.
Urban land in the ownership of water authorities must be considered in relation to the land register. At the moment, as public authorities, water authorities are required to list such lands for which they have no present purpose. The Derelict Land Act 1982 is an important instrument to dispose of derelict land for the betterment of public use. It will apply to the water companies just as it applies to British Rail, other bodies and local authorities. There is a positive inducement to get rid of derelict land for other purposes in urban areas, and I fully support that.
What worries me most is that, by adding these further powers to the NRA, as the hon. Member for Copeland and his colleagues seek to do, we would so extend the powers of that body that it would make it much more difficult for a privatised water company to try to run its business in a cost-effective way. We know that profits will be limited, that charges and costs will be controlled by the Director General of Water Services, and that the conservation and environmental powers vested in the NRA will be implemented. Those powers include major powers against pollution and discharges. When privatised, water companies will also be under the control of my right hon. Friend through the NRA. There will be immense control on the activities of the companies.
For that reason, their capitalisation should not be high, and the return on assets should be modest—suitable for public utilities, which always had a reasonable place in a share portfolio as safe but not stunning. For that reason also, the privatisation of water authorities will be a major achievement.
I wish the Bill well, but I counsel my right hon. Friend to make sure that we defeat the extended powers that he and the hon. Member for Copeland wish to impose on the NRA.

Mr. Rowlands: My few remarks follow those of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). I shall identify a vital area where the exploitation of assets will become a major concern to the communities that I represent. Fundamental issues have been raised by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). I endorse all that has been said, so I will not go over it again.
However, I shall pick up the points that were made by the hon. Member for Pudsey and illustrate what they could mean in community terms if we privatise water companies. As he rightly described, they will desperately look around for asset sales and for means of raising income. Unlike almost any other company, their main business is not capable of major expansion. It is a mature industry. It supplies its main sales, and its service is already provided to almost every household in the country. There is no way in which there can be any significant increase in sales per se. Therefore, there cannot be a major expansion of sales to boost dividends to finance the company or to give better dividends to the City that invests in it.
Where is the opportunity to deliver the returns that are required in the City for the investment that it will make? The hon. Member for Pudsey has understandably said that there will be restrictions on the development of land, that planning permissions will be required in respect of national parkland, and that there will be enormous problems in trying to exploit land. Hon. Members have cast doubt on that point. A potential exploitation of land in my area deeply concerns me. I refer to the exploitation of operational water belonging to water authorities, in particular the reservoirs that form an important part of the recreational requirements of many of our communities.
I have the distinguished privilege of being the president of the Welsh Anglers Society. Therefore, I know of the ways in which we anglers and Welsh Water have been trying to develop relationships in the expansion of opportunities for local angling organisations and individual anglers in the communities around the reservoirs of the Principality. Nowhere in the Bill is there a sufficient safeguard against large-scale exploitation of reservoirs by commercial enterprises, which would undermine the importance of local angling associations and individual anglers. It is the one other major area which, when privatised water companies put all their assets into subsidiary bodies, the City will try to exploit. There will be no planning permission objections or difficulties of the kind that the hon. Member for Pudsey mentioned. They will be able to offer powerful commercial leases and lease out our reservoirs. They are our reservoirs—they were built and financed by the communities—and they are of tremendous commercial potential.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend was a member of the Committee.

Mr. Rowlands: I was not.

Mr. Spearing: Does he agree that the area of reservoir available for fishing is proportional to the amount of storage capacity for drought purposes and the extent to which water companies must have water for purification by sunlight? What restraints will there be on private water companies, which are currently municipal bodies, from cutting such areas or volumes of storage and cutting corners that are not cut at the moment?

Mr. Rowlands: I am unable to answer the powerful and important technical point that my hon. Friend raised. I did not serve on the Committee.
I was making a good, simple community point. It is not mentioned in the Bill and I want to find out about it before the night is out. What safeguards will the Secretary of State, himself a keen angler, provide for angling communities? How will he prevent commercial exploitation? This is not a fanciful idea that we have dreamed up as an objection to the Bill.
We have watched while short stretches of Welsh rivers have been sold for enormous sums. They are becoming precious assets for use as business perks and weekends. There is a huge market in these assets in the Principality. But there is no provision in the Bill to safeguard the development of local activities for anglers and angling organisations on operational waters after the privatised water companies are running them. I hope that the Secretary of State can answer me. The lack of that safeguard is another fundamental reason why we should object to this act of privatisation.

Mr. Boswell: Has the hon. Gentleman studied the draft code of practice for the conduct of conservation, access and recreation and specifically the reference to the way in which established recreational activities should be able to continue wherever possible?

Mr. Rowlands: I have certainly read those weasel words. The codes of practice will not last five minutes with a private company looking around to finance the dividends of its new investors. They will be pushed aside. There need to be statutory rights. Compared with those weasel words, I find no satisfaction in "where possible" or "in a code of practice". We all know too well how they will be pushed easily and quickly aside with a big offer for a major lease of a reservoir for the fishing and angling facilities in our communities. I find no satisfaction in the code of practice or those words.
I apologise for talking now about angling because it seems like a sideshow. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The main issues of water prices and charges are important, if not fundamental, but we are also dealing with the various side effects of the legislation. The existing situation is not satisfactory. The arrangements have not been effective. I know that the hon. Member for Pudsey was a Minister for water a long time ago. I can remember the neglect and difficulties that occurred due to lack of investment in sewage plants and other areas. Nobody is arguing that it is not a historic problem; we wonder whether any of these measures will make the situation better.

Dr. Cunningham: Perhaps I can draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 7(5), which says:
Nothing in this section or the following provisions of this Act shall require recreational facilities made available by a relevant body to be made available free of charge.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has underlined the point that I am making, I hope with some effect. I want to add another thought. We do not find that the provisions about pollution——

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: rose——

Mr. Rowlands: In fairness, I want to be as brief as possible. I am sure that I would be tempted to reply at length to the hon. Gentleman.
The history of the situation is unsatisfactory. Anyone who has been a Minister or who has had responsibility knows that there are inherited problems that remain unsolved. But I do not believe that any of this backlog will be effectively dealt with, especially when the water companies hand out dividends to shareholders. The money will go into the shareholders' pockets, not into improving the rivers and dealing with pollution. It will be handed out to those who invest in the privatised companies.
Why do the Government oppose simple arrangements of the kind proposed in Committee? At least we ought to know when pollution occurs. It should be registered properly. In the Rhymney valley we have been developing exciting new local angling associations. We have stocked local rivers, yet overnight and at a stroke all those efforts will be wiped out by one irresponsible or negligent action, not by a domestic consumer but by a commercial or industrial operator.
I fully understand why hon. Members have received letters, as I have done, asking why we cannot strengthen the Bill so that we know who the polluters are. We should know when they pollute rivers. There should be a register. Even if the National Rivers Authority took no effective action, we could pursue the polluters. But that, too, has been rejected by the Government in Standing Committee.
Before we pass the Bill, which I fear we will do, I must say that it has no mandate in Wales. Of all the sensitive issues, water has been a special case. It has no mandate in Wales although the Government have a general mandate. We accept that as elected Members of Parliament. Therefore, the Government should heed our warnings, as represented by the new clauses.

Mr. Michael Latham: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) does not need to apologise to the House for talking about angling, because millions of people do it and also because many of us have received representations on the subject. I have had eight letters in the past 24 hours. The only shame was that they were all exactly the same and typed on what appeared to be the same pieces of paper. Nevertheless, they show a strength of feeling on this issue.
I wish to raise only one matter with my hon. Friend. It concerns Rutland water, which is in my constituency. My right hon. Friend will doubtless remember when Rutland water, the largest man-made lake in Europe, was created by Act of Parliament in the 1970s. The proposal was so unpopular at the time that Sir Kenneth Lewis, then the Conservative Member for Rutland, felt unable to introduce the private Bill to the House but opposed it. It was introduced by Mr. Tom Bradley, then the Labour Member for East Leicester. The Bill having passed, and the reservoir being duly flooded, my good friend Sir Kenneth Lewis was invited to the opening—which was carried out by Her Majesty the Queen—and Mr. Tom Bradley was not, which rankles with both of them to this day.
Rutland water has become a very important natural resource in my constituency and for the whole of the east midlands and even wider still. It is one of the most important wildlife reserves in the world. It has angling, sailing, and a fine nature reserve. It is a tremendously popular resort for the people of Leicestershire and others. They can walk around the area and enjoy themselves.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will therefore not be surprised to learn that there is concern about the prospect of development around Rutland water. I have carefully studied clauses 7, 8 and 9 which I think are well intentioned. I have studied new clause 20, which was tabled by the Opposition. It does not tackle the issue in the right way. I cannot see any advantage in vesting the land in the National Rivers Authority.
I know for a fact that under the existing system of statutory water authorities one of the most detrimental planning applications that was made to develop around Rutland water was made by the Anglian water authority in 1984. It proposed some hideous Swiss-type chalets around the catchment area—to follow the theme of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). Thank God that that very prejudicial application was rejected. The water authority did not proceed with an appeal.
I must ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) should not anticipate me. I am just leading up to


that point. I am now fixing my beady eye on my right hon. Friend and saying to him that I shall take seriously the assurances which I hope that he will give this evening and which were given to me in writing by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning and by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan).
I accept that of itself ownership is not decisive in that the privatised water companies do not need to sell land to developers. They can put in planning applications themselves if they want to, as the existing Anglian water authority did a few years ago. What I want from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a clear assurance that the Government will not grant appeals for development around Rutland water because that is simply not acceptable. There will undoubtedly be applications. Indeed, an application is outstanding at present, with a written appeal that has been before my right hon. Friend, and we shall take the way in which he deals with that appeal to be a touchstone. It is a planning application for an hotel on the edge of Rutland water. If I have any reason to believe that the water authority or anybody else is allowed to believe that it can come along with proposals for developments all around Rutland water and that they will be supported on appeal by Ministers, I shall not put up my hand for the Bill. However, I do not believe such things because I have had assurances from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East.

Mr. Mullin: If I were the hon. Gentleman, I should not take such assurances too seriously. We had many such assurances in Committee and we did not take them seriously.

Mr. Latham: The hon. Gentleman can take them seriously or not, just as he likes. I am making this speech to put my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on notice that the Rutland people expect the Department of the Environment to defend the environment around Rutland water—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not in my back yard."] Opposition Members know nothing about Rutland water.

Mr. Ashby: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not the Rutland people but the Leicestershire people who will not accept that sort of development?

Mr. Latham: I thank my hon. Friend. I am glad that he drew a clear distinction between Leicestershire people and Rutland people, although the present Secretary of State for Wales tried to abolish the difference between the two in 1972 by that most regrettable reform of local government, which is not accepted in Rutland to this day.

Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend accept that I am giving him my support?

Mr. Latham: I do not think that I shall give way to my hon. Friend again because he is worsening his chances of taking part in the debate, which I know that he wants to do.
If I may have the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, I repeat that the planning procedures must remain inviolate. Rutland district council has developed a Rutland water plan. The Leicestershire

county structure plan does not agree with proposed development around Rutland water. If the planning procedures are to be the defence—I believe that they must be and that they are—I want assurances from Ministers that that is the way in which they wish to proceed.

Mr. Livsey: The National Rivers Authority, to which we are referring in terms of pollution in our discussions on new clause 1, is essentially an environmental protection agency. New clause 1 specifically attends to the question of the polluter paying.
The record on pollution is not good because 903 km of rivers were downgraded in the period 1980–85 and 2,800 km are biologically dead in the United Kingdom. In the last year for which recorded figures are available—1987 —more than 20,000 pollution incidents were registered, but only 1 per cent. were prosecuted and only one case received the maximum fine of £2,000. When one considers that 20 per cent. of all sewerage works do not come up to standard, one realises that we face a serious problem.
The Government's past record on water authorities and their ability to bring the polluters to book is not a good one. I hope that the Bill will bring about improvements, especially under new clause 1, which insists that the polluters must pay for the environmental damage that they do. I wonder whether the Government really believe that that should happen or whether it is just an idea that sounds good but that cannot be adhered to in practice. I hope that it can be adhered to, because if we make the polluters pay, and if the NRA is effective enough to bring that about, there will be a vast improvement in the quality of our rivers. The new environmental protection agency—the NRA—is hopelessly underfunded and I do not believe that it will be in a position to carry out its environmental protection functions effectively.
8.45 pm
New clause 2 deals with contracting out. It is clear that that should not be allowed by the NRA. It would not be acceptable because if the water plcs are to carry out that contract work, it is obvious that we shall be back to having the gamekeeper and the poacher under the same roof. One could say that, by stealth, the plcs could carry out the contracting out functions for the NRA, but that would result in a hopelessly compromising situation. I hope that the Government will give us definite assurances that the water plcs will not be in that position post-privatisation and that they will not be doing the work of the NRA on environmental protection.
Much has already been said about the statutory water companies. There are many misconceptions about them, especially on the part of the Prime Minister, who has stated that a quarter of the industry is already privatised. Clearly, statutory water authorities do not operate in anything like the same way as the plcs will operate post-privatisation. When we learn that statutory water companies charge 25 per cent. less for their water than the water authorities, the reasons for that become clear. Part of the profit of the statutory water companies is, in law, recycled back to the consumer to reduce the price of water. That will undoubtedly be unscrambled when they become plcs, as can be seen from what has happened in terms of the recent water price increases from the statutory water companies, pre-privatisation, of between 30 and 50 per cent.
New clause 15, on producing an environmental plan, is excellent and will work specifically to protect the environment. Like many hon. Members who served on the Committee, and like many other hon. Members, I am an exceptionally keen angler. I like some aspects of new clause 15, which states that the NRA should be pro-active in developing angling resources and in increasing the productivity of our waters. Angling is undoubtedly an important recreation. We know that more than 3 million people enjoy it. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, the unfortunate thing is that if those aspects are privatised, the price of angling will he prohibitive for local people.
I live in a constituency where most of the rivers cost £100,000 per mile and I know how galling it is to be brought up in such an area as an angler but to be unable to fish the river. My first opportunity to fish the river Wye in my constituency was at the behest of two brothers from Stoke-on-Trent who had made a lot of money and generously offered me the opportunity to fish the river. That was my only legal opportunity to fish the river Wye. In the past, such situations have caused great problems. We do not want the reservoirs of Wales to become unaffordable to local people. In the past, local people were able to fish some of our waters only by using hand grenades. That is very deleterious—it ruins fisheries and spoils people's enjoyment. However, it may again become the only way of catching fish, which would be most regrettable.
There must be proper provision, as in new clause 15, for restocking rivers with trout, salmon and other migratory fish. In this respect, it is particularly important, from an environmental point of view, to ensure that the compensatory flows from reservoirs keep rivers at levels that will cater adequately for fishing and other recreational interests. It is important that the plcs do not, through avarice and a desire for extra profit, take action that will lead to rivers drying up. That is what might happen as a result of lack of effective controls by way of compensatory flows. No doubt the NRA, given the necessary power, will ensure adequate compensatory flows from reservoirs into rivers.
New clause 20 deals with the vesting of land. The land ought to be transferred to the NRA—there is no question about that—but the House should know that, under this privatisation measure, 99 per cent. of it will go to the plcs. I regard that as an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
In the context of the NRA, we are talking about environmental protection. The water protection zones around our reservoirs ought to be in the hands of that body to ensure that pollution does not occur. The Government have no right to maximise the assets of the water authorities—assets that were given to those authorities in 1973. Now those are to be sold off. That is not a satisfactory state of affairs. In fact, under this legislation, approximately 10 per cent. of my constituency —66,000 acres—will be sold off. That is very worrying. The Welsh water authority owns 45,000 acres of the Elan valley, and 21,000 acres in the Brecon Beacons national park. The Government are selling off assets that they do not own, which amounts to misappropriation. The Elan valley originally belonged to Birmingham corporation and that water complex was brought about through the corporation's Water Act of 1892.

Mr. Pike: While the hon. Gentleman was referring to the disposal of land in his constituency, the Minister was shaking his head as though he did not believe that it was possible. If the Government really did not believe that there is any danger of the water authorities disposing of land, there is no good reason for their rejecting new clause 20, which would put the land in the ownership of the NRA but would allow the water authorities to operate exactly as the Bill proposes.

Mr. Livsey: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is quite right—that the NRA and the plcs could function adequately with the land in NRA possession. Indeed, that would be a far cleaner division of responsibilities than is proposed in the Bill.
I have referred to the Birmingham Corporation Water Act of 1892, under which the Elan valley complex was built. There is no doubt that the current situation is very worrying. When the water authorities were set up under the 1973 legislation, the assets were transferred to the Welsh water authority and certain payments were made to Birmingham corporation. Everyone appeared to be satisfied because there was local authority representation on the water authority, giving some democratic control of the situation, but all of that is to go by the board and the assets are to be sold. It is not surprising that the leader of Birmingham corporation says that he would like £500 million for those assets. After all, they were paid for years ago and have served the water consumers extremely well.
Important large assets ought to be transferred to the NRA. It is also important that local reservoir fishing rights, going back a very long way, should be safeguarded. They ought not to be sold off over people's heads.
For all those reasons, the amendments before the House should be accepted. There is a great deal of logic in them, and they would do much to improve the Bill.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I am delighted to take part in this debate—the longest today—because it will focus the attention of Parliament and the country on what ought to be one of the proudest achievements of this Parliament—the setting up, for the first time, of a national environmental protection agency, in the shape of the National Rivers Authority. That is something that no Government, of either party, has succeeded in doing. Government Members should welcome this long, four-hour debate, as an opportunity to say again and again that we are proud that, as the environment becomes more and more important in politics, we have taken this initiative, whereas no other Government has succeeded in doing so.

Mr. Allen McKay: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it is necessary to confiscate the people's water and land to create a'National Rivers Authority?

Mr. Leigh: I simply turn that question on its head: if it was unnecessary, why did the last Labour Government do it? Does the hon. Gentleman seriously believe that, but for privatisation, we would have the resources to set up the NRA? Of course, the answer is no. It is because of the pressures created by privatisation that we are setting up the National Rivers Authority.
I accept that in the country there are some doubts about this measure. That is hardly surprising. There is bound to be some doubt about any new measure. If food had been


nationalised by the Attlee Government, there would have been concern. If we had food queues, and if the Prime Minister were to suggest the privatisation of food, there would be worries in the country. But that would not make it wrong to privatise food distribution, and I think we could show that food retailers are no profiteers but actually provide an excellent service in respect of an essential commodity.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the functions of the National Rivers Authority are those which are necessary, which do not result in profit, and that if they had been left with the water authorities that would have been a bar to successful flotation? Is not that the only reason for the setting up of the National Rivers Authority? Is it not a fact that Lord Crickhowell, who is chairman of the National Rivers Advisory Committee and will be chairman of the National Rivers Authority, has said:
I think I should make it absolutely clear that I see it as one of the priority objectives of the National Rivers Authority to operate a slim, efficient, cost effective organisation"?
What resources will it be given?

Mr. Leigh: The National Rivers Authority has to be set up because it is not right that private companies should regulate the affairs of other private companies.

Mr. Allan Roberts: rose——

Mr. Leigh: I am sorry, but I cannot give way again. Other hon. Members want to make their contributions, and I am making a short speech.
When I go out into the country I always ask people whether they are entirely satisfied with the service they are getting from the nationalised water industry. The answer is, of course, that they are not. This week, I visited a small sewerage works in Welton, in my constituency, where there has been under-investment. The village is suffering from under-investment, and there have been delays in implementing what is quite obviously an essential scheme.
I do not want to make a party political point, but it has to be said—and it should be said again and again—that investment in sewerage was cut by 50 per cent. under the Labour Government. They did not do it deliberately. They were speaking the language of priorities. They did not want to cut investment in sewerage but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) said in his cogent speech, there are no votes in sewerage but there are plenty in hospitals and schools. The measure is necessary from an environmental point of view and also to attract private capital into an industry which has been underfunded historically and in which there has been under-investment.
9 pm
We have an excellent case to take to the country in arguing for a National Rivers Authority, in saying that poachers do not make the best gamekeepers, in saying that it is not right that the Government should set the standards and then provide the cash, and in saying that historically the Treasury has had more power in these matters than the Department of the Environment. We can say that again and again. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we can be proud of the fact that we are the

Government who are setting up an independent, nationally funded and adequately funded national environmental protection council.
I can deal briefly with the Opposition's proposals. In regard to new clause 1, no one has mentioned clause 110, which deals with anti-pollution works and operations. I am sure that in replying to the debate my hon. Friend the Minister will make it clear that in clause 110 we have in legislation, for the first time so far as I am aware, a provision to enable the National Rivers Authority to carry out works and operations where it is likely that there has been pollution. In that clause we have the powers that are needed by the National Rivers Authority. New clause 1 is not needed. It is a debating device. All it has done is to enable my hon. Friends to debate what we want to debate —the NRA and what it will do to improve standards.
As regards new clause 2, it is suggested by the Opposition that the NRA will be in the pockets of the plcs. In the early days following vesting, there may be only one computer or other resource available for the NRA function and the plc function. Are the Opposition suggesting that the NRA should not be allowed to use that essential resource?
Neither new clause 1 nor new clause 2 makes sense. New clause 1 might not be enforceable. I can illustrate the point by referring to nitrates. What will happen if it is decided that nitrates are polluting land? Who should pay? Should it be the present generation of farmers, the farmers of a previous generation, or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which encouraged farmers of previous generations to put nitrates on the land? New clause 1 is not practical. None of the amendments that the Opposition has placed before us makes sense.
I am not dogmatic about whether the ownership of land should rest in the hands of the NRA or the plcs. I simply pose one question: is it seriously contended that nationalised industries or nationalised bodies are necessarily better housekeepers or environmentalists than plcs? I am not convinced of that or that the planning process in areas of outstanding natural beauty is not fully equipped to deal with the problem.
In short, here we have an opportunity to go to the country with a good case. We should not be apologetic about the Bill. Tomorrow, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I shall develop the argument to show that we have got an even better case to put on why, as well as setting up the National Rivers Authority, we should create strong, powerful, well-regulated plcs.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: It has been interesting to listen to Conservative Members airing their differences on the latest Government attempt to rob the people of public assets. It is particularly interesting to note that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) has been the only hon. Member to give enthusiastic, unthinking support for what the Government are putting forward. With the exception of the hon. Gentleman, Conservative Members have all had reserva-tions or qualms about various aspects of the Bill. That indicates to some extent the way in which the new clauses are being discussed against clear changes in public opinion. Our constituents are concerned about what the Government propose.
I made the point in Committee that one good thing that had come out of the progress of the Bill was that public opinion had changed and that there was increased public


awareness of the problems of pollution and other aspects of the water industry. The fact that the media have highlighted the issues is interesting. Newspaper after newspaper—all of them newspapers that support the Conservative party—has expressed the view in editorials that the Government should drop the legislation. They have exposed the fact that not only are there major problems because of pollution in our rivers and estuaries, but that the Government's legislation will worsen the position.
We have heard during the debate of divers at Torbay coming out of the water with condoms on their heads. We have heard about problems in other parts of the country. There has been frequent evidence from hon. Members of the NIMBY syndrome. We should also remember that this week we have had a major pollution problem in the English channel because a cargo of lindane has gone astray.
It is not just in the channel that we have these problems. Within the Yorkshire Water area there is evidence of lindane having been dumped in rivers and estuaries and of other dangerous toxic chemicals having been dumped in rivers and estuaries and of other dangerous toxic chemicals having been dumped in rivers beside populated areas. The way in which the Yorkshire Post has exposed in detail what has been going on in the area is commendable. That is how public opinion has been changed during the progress of the Bill. The people have learned exactly what is happening. One major concern has been that the polluters are getting away scotfree under the present system, but that will still be the case with the proposals put forward by the Government.
Pollution is likely to get worse as a result of the Bill. Indeed, it has been seen to deteriorate in the run-up to the privatisation of water. Over the past four years river pollution in Yorkshire has been getting progressively worse. During the 1980s there has been a frightening decline in the quality of our rivers. Figures have already been given in the debate. Ten per cent. of all rivers in Britain are biologically dead. That is a disgrace. The Government have been in power for nearly 10 years but they have been complacent. It is no excuse for them to blame previous Governments.

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman has said that 10 per cent. of the rivers of Britain are biologically dead. I take it that he is referring to rivers in classes C and D. Will he give the figure for Europe at large? Would it be 25 per cent. of the rivers in the same categories?

Mr. Hinchliffe: I am concerned with the Bill which relates to this country. We could spend all night talking about Europe. I am talking about the fact that 10 per cent. of our rivers are biologically dead. If the hon. Gentleman defends that, or if he is proud of it, I find that incredible. It is a disgrace that so many of our rivers are in that state.
In 1980, 12,500 pollution incidents were registered; in 1987–88, there were nearly 24,000. That is a huge increase in known incidents of pollution. Of course, as we all know, many pollution incidents are not reported. I made the point in Committee that I and many other hon. Members are receiving representations from constituents who are deeply concerned about the local aspects of the legislation.
I was contacted by the West Yorkshire canoe club which is based in Wakefield in my constituency. It asked me what I could do about the fact that many young people

want to learn to use canoes but must travel 15 miles from the club to find a river that they can safely use. If a youngster tips out of a canoe into the river Calder in Wakefield, his or her health can be seriously affected. I live right next to the river Calder and young people ask me, "Why can we not fish in our local river? Why are there no fish? As a Member of Parliament, what will you do about it?"
Not long ago it was brought to my attention that the family of someone who had drowned in the river Calder was dissuaded from seeing the body because of the stale of the body after being in the river for only a few hours. Those are the issues with which the Bill should be dealing, but it does not do so.
There is clear evidence in the preparation for privatisation that the Government have added to the problems that I concede have existed for a considerable time. Water authorities under the present Government are concerned with financial targets and not with targets to tackle pollution. The water authorities are concerned specifically with budgeting and not with the general issues about which my constituents are concerned in relation to the standard and quality of the rivers in their area. Artificially high profit targets have been set for the water authorities in a deliberate attempt to push up the profits prior to the industry being sold off, thereby making it attractive to potential investors.
Under the Government we have seen the lowering of capital spending and restrictions on borrowing powers, which have meant that it has not been possible to invest in tackling such problems as sewage effluent and other matters about which we are all concerned.
Even more alarming is the evidence during the past few months about the way in which applications for the relaxation of sewage discharge consents are encouraged by the Government to avoid legal wrangles that might complicate the selling off of this precious industry. I heard some time ago that the maximum number of relaxations that the Government would allow would be 1,000. I understand that that figure has now been exceeded. I should be interested to hear from the Minister the number of relaxation of sewage discharge consents. How many are there in each of our areas? Are they temporary or are they permanent? What investment is going into improving that sewerage——

Mr. Devlin: rose——

Mr. Hinchliffe: I saw the hon. Gentleman wander in. Other hon. Members have sat in the Chamber throughout the debate.

Mr. Devlin: I was here before the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
How temporary is a temporary discharge consent? How many are there throughout the country? What difference is that making to the quality of our rivers and the amount of pollution arising from sewage works in our rivers?
New clause 1 establishes the important principle of the polluter paying for the damage that he or she causes—and why not? It appears to be plain common sense that they should be made responsible. It is a straightforward reasonable way of making a polluter responsible for the damage that he causes.

Mr. Devlin: That is nonsense

Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to speak later. I object to such comments.

Mr. Devlin: Give way then.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I have said why I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has just wandered in. He was not in the Chamber earlier. He has not heard what I have said.

Mr. Devlin: I was here before the hon. Gentleman was. I have been here all the time.

Mr. Hinchliffe: It is known that pollution is often a byproduct of highly profitable processes, so that the individuals concerned with serious pollution and such chemicals as I have mentioned in areas such as Yorkshire Water are frequently involved in profitable businesses and should be made responsible for the damage that they do to our environment. I believe that the charges faced by the polluters should reflect the extent of the damage that they have done. I do not see how anyone could object to that as a basic principle.
9.15 pm
This measure could reduce the effects of pollution more than any others in the Bill. It is pleasing to note that some Conservative Members support new clause 1. However, it will be resisted by the Government because it would mean in certain circumstances that the water plcs would be charged with meeting the costs of the environmental damage that they cause. As we know, at present it is the water authorities and the water companies that are among the worst polluters.
New clause 2 deals with another issue of serious concern to the Opposition and it was certainly discussed in great detail during the Committee stage. It provides for the subcontracting of certain aspects of the work of the NRA, possibly to the same people working alongside the water plcs. The fact that monitoring and control could be subcontracted to polluting plcs, or the same people concerned with the plcs' functions, indicates that the Government are not in any way serious about the role of the NRA, despite the comments made by such hon. Members as the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, who says that the new clause is a great innovation by the Government. They have brought in a new body that will have a major impact on the environment. We know that the NRA was not proposed initially by the Government, because the Government favoured the water plcs being involved with self-regulation. The NRA was foisted on to the British Government by outside bodies. That is a fact that no one can contradict.

The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): indicated dissent.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister can shake his head, but everyone knows that that is the case. If it was not the case, why was it not included in the initial proposal that the Government brought forward? They have had plenty of time to consider the proposals in detail. The question of getting away from the poacher and gamekeeper issue is frankly nonsense, because the same situation could arise as that proposed in the Bill for subcontracting. I believe that it is the same as giving control of rat infestation to the rats. When we consider the proposals for subcontracting, we can see that it is essential to include new clause 2 in the Bill.
Despite what the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said, the concept of the National Rivers Authority is completely alien to the philosophy of the Government, who believe in free play of the market and self-regulation. I support the NRA and I believe that it will be useful in the context of a publicly owned water industry. However, the NRA has been forced on the Government in order to get the measure through the House. The proposals on contracting out give the game away completely.
The Bill has been portrayed as a green Bill. If we consider the representations that we have received from various organisations with green concerns, outlooks and interests, it will be seen that it is not a green Bill, but a greed Bill. It is about the greed for profits and dividends. It is about a greed for personal gain. It is not about our environment and pollution, but about people making a fast buck. We should forget the green nonsense, because the Bill is all about greed.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I spoke in favour of the Bill at Second Reading and I have read and heard nothing since to make me change my mind. However, I was committed to other things and was not privileged to join the Committee. I was sad about that, because I was very interested in the Bill, having been privileged as a junior to be involved in much of the early work in the 18 months prior to the last general election. That is why I feel that I can say that when the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) moved what I suppose could be called environmental clauses, he was perhaps unjustly bidding for canonisation. He certainly cannot have been bidding for ministerial promotion—that is very unlikely. The hon. Member for Copeland gave the impression of wearing a halo as he moved this series of Opposition new clauses. If he thought he was wearing one, it was undeserved and, despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can claim the credit for the National Rivers Authority.
When this measure was being researched and discussed in the last Parliament, the National Rivers Authority was not even under consideration. There was just a river basin entity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) pointed out. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend because, in my view, the present Secretary of State felt that the environmental issues had to be separated out—that the commercial function had to be separated from the controllers and the legislators—and he made the right decision.
The new clauses are simply window-dressing to try to obtain for the Opposition, as the hon. Member for Wakefield tried to do, public acclaim for being interested in environmental issues and wanting the separation of the commercial from the environmental function. That separation is entirely the brainchild of the Secretary of State.
There seems to be no need for the opening subsection of new clause 1. Clauses 99, 100, 101 and 102 appear to fit the bill well. Clause 99 describes the waters that we are discussing; clause 100 sets out the form of classification; clause 101 gives the quality objectives; and clause 102 imposes the duties to maintain those objectives. Clearly, therefore, new clause 1(1) is unnecessary.
Subsection (2) of new clause 1 is equally unnecessary because clause 103 sets out the offences and procedures of


enforcement. Commentators outside have suggested that the punishments for breaches should be tougher. Perhaps the Minister will underline, when he replies, the power that the courts will have and the sort of punishments that are envisaged. That would help to put our minds at rest on that issue.
I see no reason for new clause 2, other than as a piece of window-dressing by which the Opposition seek to achieve some kudos from what the Bill already achieves. Subsection (1) of that new clause is already covered amply by the Bill. Subsection (2) is covered by clause 99 onwards in part III of the Bill. Subsection (3) of the new clause is covered by clauses 3 and 6 of the Bill. Clearly, therefore, we do not need new clause 2.
New clause 15 is really only clause 101 of the Bill but listed in enormous detail. The danger of listing on the face of the Bill the sort of detail that new clause 15 would achieve is that in due course, when the Bill is law, someone will say that something has been left out or forgotten. Clause 101(4) of the Bill deals with the whole subject in a more practical way because the House, through the Secretary of State, can vary the objectives at regular intervals, when hon. Members will have the opportunity to debate such changes to ensure that the public interest is protected.
When dealing with new clause 20, the hon. Member for Copeland seemed determined that the new plcs should not own any freehold land. I find that puzzling. Be they waterworks, buildings or just open land, those items will have to be valued and people will have to make a judgment about what might or might not happen in the longer-term —[Interruption.]—and that is the sort of judgment we must all make when we buy something.
I regret that the hon. Member for Copeland is not in his place. He seemed to suggest that the vast majority of the land that the water authorities will obtain is national park land. One might have believed, listening to him, that the water authorities will turn our national parks into housing estates. I understand—perhaps the Minister will make this clear—that only a small part of our national parks is owned by water authorities. Most of the land is privately owned, and I think that the Ministry of Defence owns a large slice of it. But whoever owns it, I can see no way by which planning consents will substantially change our national parks.
I hope that the Minister will reassure us on the question of access. In playing to the gallery, the hon. Member for Copeland, when referring to clause 7(5), referred to free access and free recreation. Britain's 4 million anglers already pay substantially for what they get. It is unfair to suggest that they are getting it free.

Mr. Allen McKay: British anglers pay a rod licence, not an access licence.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Let us not play with words. The hon. Member for Copeland, when referring to clause 7(5), sought to create the impression that after privatisation people would have to pay for things that they now get free. That is patently untrue and I believe the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
In short, it is perfectly clear that everything that is referred to in these new clauses is already adequately covered in the Bill. I therefore have no worries whatever about joining my hon. Friends in voting them down.

Mr. Martlew: This is a terrible Bill and I am surprised that there are not more hon. Members in the Chamber tonight. I suspect that the reason is that they know that we do not have to worry too much about the Bill because, even if it becomes law, nobody will buy the shares. And they know, of course, as we come nearer a general election, that it is not worth buying them anyhow because we have to take water back into public ownership—[Interruption.] We have obviously upset hon. Gentlemen. We must have touched a raw nerve—which is more than the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) did.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman is telling us new things here because the last we heard from those on his Front Bench was talk about beefing up the regulation side but leaving the privatised supply absolutely alone. If he is telling us one thing and his hon. Friends on the Front Bench are telling us another, we need to be told which is the truth.

Mr. Martlew: I am delighted to reply to the hon. Gentleman. I think that the last time he intervened was in Committee and at that time, too, he was crawling. There is no doubt that the Labour party will take water hack into public ownership.
In connection with the new clauses, I want to deal with two matters. One is the question of the contracting out of the National Rivers Authority functions and the other is the principle of the polluter paying.
We have already had a great deal of debate on the NRA. We do not believe that it will protect the rivers and water courses of this country, but we accept that it is better than nothing, and it is better than what the Government were proposing before. But we do not believe that the Government should be able to hand over the function of testing the rivers to the plcs. That worries us greatly because it is not a credible alternative for the plcs to do the work for the NRAs. There is an old saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune, but in this case that will not hold water—I am sorry about that. Especially in the North-West water area, there will not be the option for the NRAs to do their own testing because the decision has already been taken that the main laboratories at Dawson house in Warrington will be transferred to the plc. I deliberately asked the chairman of the North-West water authority about this when I visited Warrington last year.
Furthermore, no real attempt has been made to provide alternative laboratories for the new rivers authority; so there is no possibility of the NRA carrying out its own tests in the north-west. The only option it will have for the foreseeable future is to contract it out to the water plc, and that just is not credible. Even if the tests are carried out correctly and there is no hint of doubt, people will not believe this is so if the plcs are doing it.
At the sewage works in my own constituency there is a very good small, well-equipped laboratory for testing the effluent as it goes out into the river Eden. But that is to be transferred to the plc and that laboratory will do the testing for the NRA. That, again, has no credibility. The separation of the two about which we have heard so much from the Government and their supporters is a sham. It will not work. Nobody will believe that one body can be judge and jury. I only wish that the Secretary of State had taken the example of the Home Office and the way it dealt


with the situation with regard to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. They were divided and now have the Crown service dealing with the prosecution and the police dealing with the job of catching the criminals and arranging——

Mr. Mullin: Arranging the confessions.

Mr. Martlew: —arranging the convictions. I would not like to cast any aspersions on the working of our police force.
What we have here, instead of that, is the NRA giving the job of providing the evidence to the criminal. The water plcs will be taken to court but the job of providing evidence will also be given to them. Therefore, my guess is that not many of them will be taken to court and even fewer will be convicted.
I turn now to new clause 1 and the question of making the polluter pay. I agree with that. Too often large companies pollute our rivers and get away with small fines. None of their directors takes personal responsibility and yet they are often guilty of wilful neglect, the consequence of which can mean the killing of hundreds of thousands of fish in many miles of river.
Let us consider the way that companies are treated compared to poachers. Often, high fines or imprisonment are imposed on poachers who have taken 10 or 20 fish. I am not soft on poachers who get everything they deserve, but they do less damage to the rivers than do some of our major industries.

Mr. Pike: In the scenario that my hon. Friend has painted, is it not possible that some industrial polluters could invest in the water plcs? It would be cheaper for them to purchase a large stake in those industries rather than deal with the pollution. They could then carry out the tests for the NRA. Is not that how this Government intend privatisation to work?

Mr. Martlew: Obviously, my hon. Friend has been reading my notes. The polluters are not only likely to invest in the plcs but have already made an investment in the Conservative party. That is why there is some opposition to this clause, because it is well known that big business does not want it.
Pollution in my own area is usually caused by caustic soda, which is used by many industries. They fail to place fail-safe systems round the caustic soda tanks, somebody leaves the valve on and as a result thousands of fish die. In one case, a thousand gallons of fresh cream went down the river, which did not harm the fish but was not good for the print works further down.
Directors must be accountable for their companies' actions. Directors who are wilfully negligent should be brought before the courts and treated in the same way as poachers. We must ensure that when pollution occurs those responsible are not only fined heavily but made to pay the full cost of restocking the river and bringing it back to life. Some compensation should also be given to the angling clubs whose sport on the river is spoilt. That is the way forward.
However, I recognise that if we impose tight standards on factories that have been polluting rivers for many years —many such have been mentioned in the industrial north —it could well mean their closure. Unfortunately—I

understand this view—people often prefer a polluted river to life on the dole. Therefore, in genuine cases grants should be made available to such companies to help them to stop polluting the rivers. If those factories are eventually forced to close, the Government will provide derelict land grants to clear the site and plant trees on it and, therefore, it surely makes sense to support those companies with a tradition of polluting the area and which cannot afford the necessary equipment. If the Government gave them financial assistance it would create better factories and clean rivers. I hope that the Minister will take up that point.
The agro-chemical industry also concerns me. More and more farms are causing problems which are not all the farmers' fault. Much of the slurry contamination must be the farmers' responsibility but many of the agro-chemicals —some of which are recommended by the Government —create problems. Only last week the Hexham Courant —not coroner—carried an article about an area not far from where I live in Alston. The headline reads:
Cot deaths linked to sheep dip in river".
A scientist, Dr. Lewis Routledge, who has been monitoring the river Tyne, says that a problem could well result from Government-approved sheep dips running into the river and causing serious health problems to the local community. Within four hours of infected sheep dip going into the river it is running through taps in various parts of Newcastle. The Government should not alway blame the farmer when things go wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield talked about biologically dead rivers—rivers that cannot sustain life. That is not strictly accurate: people may die, but rivers can be brought back to life. All that we need to do is spend money, give it time and have the necessary will. I do not think, however, that the clauses that we have talked about today will enable us to bring those rivers back to life. It is no good saying that the position is worse in other parts of Europe; I am interested only in rivers in the county that contains my constituency.
I have heard Ministers going on about being green. They are indeed green—like the scum on the top of a stagnant pond. The Bill should be taken seriously, and I believe that people will refuse to buy shares in the privatised industry with which it deals. I also believe that they will refuse to vote for this Government in the next election.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: It may be helpful if I say to hon. Members who are now rising that I understand that the Front-Bench Members will seek to rise at 10.20 pm. Will hon. Members bear that in mind so that all who wish to speak may do so?

Mr. Ashby: At the beginning of the last century, people got together to provide much-needed sewers in the cities to take away the effluent. Gradually, in the latter part of the century, the water authorities were built up, and provided the clean water that was so necessary to the urban environment. The sewerage undertakers were at first largely owned by the municipal authorities, while the water authorities were privately owned, later to be nationalised. The two came together in the 1970s. The history of the sewerage and water authorities contains a common theme. In the last century no one provided any real control or set sufficiently high standards for the water that was to be consumed.
It is a sad fact that over the same period of 80 or 90 years we have seen a decline in our waterways, which we all regret. We have seen many waterways die, and we have seen heavier pollution over the past 40 years in areas such as the Fens, much of it due to the deposit of nitrates some years ago. I remember going on the Broads some 30 years ago when they were alive. I remember the joy that I experienced fishing from a boat. I went there several times. I have not been recently, but I understand that it is no longer possible to fish from a boat because there are no fish. That is very sad.
The one theme that runs through the history of public water supply is that there has been nobody to set the standards and to enforce them. At long last, the Bill creates the National Rivers Authority to set standards and enforce them. The Opposition have said time and again that they would like to wave a magic wand so that those standards would be enforced immediately, but such things are not achieved by waving a magic wand or by willing the changes to occur, as has been suggested. Those standards will be achieved only by perseverence and education, by explaining to people, encouraging them and ultimately enforcing standards upon them.
9.45 pm
The National Rivers Authority will provide all that. It is necessary to set out a timetable and a scheme. We must know that after a given time all waterways will have to reach acceptable standards. The National Rivers Authority will have to set a five, 10 or 15-year scheme. All the changes are costly and will take time, but the National Rivers Authority will create a policy to clean up the country.
We all talk about green policies. The Opposition and the Government believe that it is necessary to control pollution and to improve the environment in our country.

Mr. Devlin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ashby: No, time is short.
We are being dogged by the Labour party's opposition to privatisation or profit and to the idea that any private company should own the land and provide the water. The Opposition have forgotten that over the past 80 years public companies have been the worst providers. For the past 80 years there has been a decline in standards and the public companies have been absolutely hopeless at preventing pollution. Only now are we experiencing the consequences of the nationalised industries and publicly-controlled authorities. They are absolutely hopeless for a number of reasons. They do not provide sufficient capital investment. I blamed the Labour Government in the 1970s because there was a decline of something like 50 per cent. because of the country's economy at the time, but all Governments have tried to restrict capital investment by public authorities. All Governments look at any profit made by a public authority and decide to take it back into the Treasury because it is needed for hospitals, tax cuts or some other reason. So the public companies and authorities have been starved of investment and have gradually declined.
The Bill provides us with the only opportunity to break out of the straitjacket. The National Rivers Authority will set the standards, but the Bill will also free those authorities from financial restrictions and allow them to invest. Nobody will want to invest in the public companies or buy shares in them unless they provide an ongoing

investment to show that they are strong, powerful companies providing good water supplies, and so on. That would be a spur to higher standards and to the benefit of the community as a whole. Without such a provision, we shall have a stop-go process for years to come and there will be no improvement.
I was astounded when I heard that 65 per cent. of the sewage discharged into the sea in Wales was raw sewage. That is wholly unacceptable. I am looking forward to the NRA setting up a scheme and telling companies, "You cannot go on like this—you have 10 years to clean up your act and see that you discharge only clean effluent into the North sea, or you will be prosecuted thereafter." It is essential that we consider the matter in that way. Clause 110 is important and has my wholehearted support. I reject new clause 1.
Amendment after amendment was proposed in Committee, but when we examined them we found that they were meaningless because the same provisions were already in the Bill. We have heard only scaremongering from the Labour party and there has been little constructive opposition. The important point was made by an Opposition Member who said that the Bill had been well drafted and constructed, but that the one point to which he was opposed was privatisation. We are arguing about the NRA when, in effect, there is opposition only to privatisation.
The weakness of the drafting of new clause I can be seen when one looks at clause 110, which deals with the control of the National Rivers Authority over effluent and its powers to prosecute. It says:
Where the Authority carries out any such works or operations as are mentioned in subsection (1) above. it shall, subject to subsection (4) below, be entitled to recover the expenses reasonably incurred in doing so from any person who, as the case may be—
(a) caused or knowingly permitted the matter in question to be present.
The person referred to is the one who allows the pollution to take place. Is that not exactly what is proposed in the new clause 1?

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ashby: No—other hon. Members wish to speak and I am about to finish.
Every amendment proposed today has been a graphic example of surplus, and a waste of time because the real opposition is to privatisation. The Bill is excellent and does not require amendment. It provides a strong National Rivers Authority which will do all that we require. For that reason, I shall vote against any amendments and will continue to support this excellent Bill.

Mr. Morley: We have had an admission of failure from the Conservatives today. We have heard a succession of speeches trying lamely to defend a Bill which seeks to put a natural monopoly into the hands of private companies and is a confession that the Government have failed to release the water companies from the wholly artificial straitjacket of financial restraint. There is nothing to stop the Government removing that straitjacket because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is knee deep in money with a £14 billion surplus, with which he intends to pay off the national debt. Some of that could easily have been directed towards the water companies for infrastructure invest-ment. By admitting their failure, the Government are


throwing the water companies out into the private sector, where higher charges and higher revenues will be required to meet that investment. It is far more unfair to charge consumers, with no differentiation between those who can and cannot pay, than to raise money by way of taxation and surpluses.
The most recent opinion poll on people's attitudes towards water privatisation showed that 96 per cent. of the public were against it. The 4 per cent. in favour must all have been on the Conservative Benches today, lamely trying to defend the indefensible.
New clause 1 embodies the principle that the polluter pays.

Mr. Devlin: rose——

Mr. Morley: I shall not give way because time is short and others wish to speak.
On numerous occasions the Government have claimed to believe in the principle that the polluter should pay, so they should support the new clauses.
The Yorkshire Post inquiry found that 140 companies in the Yorkshire Water area were breaking the legal limits on discharges, but only four were prosecuted, although one company was discharging more than 800 times the legal limit. Other companies were found to be breaking the limit every time the water was sampled but were never once prosecuted. That could be put right by a determined Government, committed to environmental and green policies, rather than one following doctrinaire policies with the aim of privatising everything in sight without thought of the consequences for Britain's long-term future or its essential services.
New clause 20 has not been dealt with in any great detail. It deals with the control of the freehold of land which will be ceded to the new companies. That issue is the crux of the Government's privatisation policy. Is it the Government's intention that private companies should control water distribution, quality and sewage, or is it their intention that there should be yet another asset-stripping exercise involving all the land that goes with the water companies? There is no reason why the new water companies will need the freehold of such land to do their job properly. That includes operational land, catchment land, reservoir land, and land for sewerage works. The leasehold would be sufficient to enable them to do their job. If the freehold were held by the NRA, the future of that land would be safeguarded and there would be no attempt to asset-strip it or to develop it in ways that would be unsympathetic to the environment, destroying sites of scientific interest or denying people access to footpaths, whether for sporting activities such as fishing or walking or the many other activities which presently take place on water authority properties.
In supporting new clause 20, I am not speaking simply for myself, or even for the Labour party. The bodies that support new clause 20 range from the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Ramblers Association and various conservation groups. Even the National Farmers Union has expressed concern about the future of land held by water boards. It is concerned about the tenant farmers, many of whom rent or lease their land from the water companies, and who face a real threat.
The Secretary of State recently had to step in to resolve a row in north Yorkshire where the Yorkshire water authority was inviting bids for a valley occupied by tenant farmers. It was offered a bid by the chairman of Barratts over the heads of the tenant farmers. Under regulations and guidelines laid down by the Government, the Yorkshire water authority was under an obligation to accept the highest bid. Fortunately, the Secretary of State stepped in and allowed Yorkshire water authority to dispose of that land to the tenant farmers at the bids they put in, but the Secretary of State could do that only because he controlled the freehold of that land and had the final say over what happened to it. If that land was held by a plc, the company could dispose of it as it wished following privatisation. If the Government succeed, despite the problems that the Bill is in, the private companies could—quite logically from their point of view—simply take the highest bid, which would have been from the chairman of Barratts, and goodness knows what would have happened to the tenant farmers. Their livelihoods could have been wrecked and they could have been kicked out of farms where their families had lived for generations.
If the Government are serious about providing core services—that is what the Bill is all about—there is no reason why they cannot accept this group of amendments, including new clause 20, which will guarantee control over land use. Potential polluters will thus be eliminated and people will have some confidence in privatisation.
10 pm
That links in with new clause 15, which calls for a plan for water and the environment, which in turn fits nicely with new clause 20. There is a case for a National Rivers Authority, although it has been grossly undermined by the fact that it can, and in some cases must, contract out services such as the sampling and checking of water. That is the same argument as we have at the moment with integrated water management—the gamekeeper is also the poacher, which undermines the whole concept of the NRA. If the NRA is to be successful it must have resources. The comments of Lord Crickhowell, who is currently in charge, are a matter of concern because he talks about the need for a "slim" organisation. Two thirds of the NRA staff will be involved in flood defence, which leaves only one third to ensure pollution control and water quality as well as conservation management.
The conservation and leisure guidelines are full of weasel words and get-out clauses such as "will take note", "will have regard to", "if possible" and "where convenient". It is not a tight code to ensure conservation management and leisure access and to defend permissive rights of way. It has no teeth and I suspect that the resources to be given to it will also be inadequate for it to do its job properly.
If the Government are serious about conservation and the management of areas of outstanding natural beauty, which many of the water companies will inherit, of sites of special scientific interest, and of the voluntary nature reserves, into which people have put many years of effort and concern, they ought to accept these clauses, which will ensure that those who despoil our environment have to pay to clean it up. In my constituency Bottesford Beck, an area south of Scunthorpe, was recently polluted—probably by British Steel, although I make no accusation because the Severn-Trent water authority has not yet


replied to my letter to tell me who is the culprit—and whoever despoiled that stream in Bottesford ought to pay to clean it up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has said, people caught poaching are given quite punitive fines, but those who ruin a river are given derisory fines and nothing in the Bill demonstrates the Government's will or commitment to tackle the problem and to ensure that those who despoil our environment pay to put it right.
I have no confidence in the Bill as it stands or in the way the Government are handling it. I certainly have no confidence in the Secretary of State or in his guarantees about the quality of our rivers and the protection of our environment, and I believe that the public also have no confidence in the Government or their privatisation proposals.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I had been intending to keep the comments which I wanted to share with the House until we reached my new clause 11. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) said something which was inaccurate. Because some people know him to be a barrister, they might reasonably have supposed that he had read both new clause 1 and clause 110 when he said that they were—I think that I quote his words—exactly the same. They are not exactly the same. New clause 1 is mandatory. Clause 110 of the Bill is merely permissive. If anyone cares to read the Bill for themselves they can see it. Clause 110 of the Bill is entitled "Anti-pollution works and operations" and says that if an individual or body corporate causes pollution, the authority shall be entitled to carry out the following works, and later on it shall be entitled to recover the expenses.
That is a discretionary power, which is not exactly the same—I repeat that it is not exactly the same—as what is in, I think, the excellent new clause 1, which makes it mandatory and not discretionary. It states that
it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and of the Authority to ensure that in all reasonable circumstances the person who causes any pollution of a river or other water source, whether that person is a body corporate, water or sewerage undertaking or an individual, shall bear the cost of remedying that pollution and of taking steps to prevent any recurrence.
It is necessary to point out to the House that there is an unfortunate distinction, which is a very real difference, between the new clause that we are debating tonight and what is already in the Bill. It is not a duplication of what is in the Bill. It is a transference of the discretionary into the compulsory. That is particularly important in the circumstances to which some hon. Members have alluded —for instance, where the NRA may actually sub-contract some of its functions to a body which has already proved itself hopelessly lacking in will to prosecute. If it is lacking in will to prosecute, will it be lacking in will to recover under discretionary powers?
On the basis of experience to date, certainly the subcontracted body will not, and we have yet to know whether the National Rivers Authority will. I, of course, hope that it will, but the track record of the alkali inspectorate to date is not such as to give one complete confidence that even an independent body will use its powers to prosecute or, in this case, to recover costs, if it is discretionary to it whether it does so or not.
For those reasons, I think that new clause 1 would effect an improvement in the Bill rather than merely duplicate that which is already in it.
I will not say any more, because it is my hope that we may reach later on—indeed, immediately after this series —new clause 11 which would, if we ever reach it, have the result of transferring by way of interest-free loan the proceeds of privatisation to the works necessary to meet the EEC anti-pollution requirements for water and sewerage instead of those costs falling on the user by way of increased charges, either to pay for the works in the first place or to pay the interest and then repay the principal of loans. But of course I would be in danger of straying out of order if I pursued that further at this moment.

Mr. Mullin: These new clauses do not challenge the principle of privatisation, to which we are unshakably opposed. The clauses mitigate the disastrous effects that hon. Members on both sides of the House believe will result from the privatisation of water. They are, in a way, a test of Government rhetoric. The Government, at all levels, continually insist that they believe, in principle, in the aims of the clauses, yet when it comes to it they always advise Conservative Members to vote against them.
New clause 1 deals with the attempt to enshrine in legislation the principle to which everyone seems to pay lip service, that the polluter should pay. Until now, the underlying principle has been that the consumer pays. That is likely to remain the case unless the Bill is amended because, as the Secretary of State acknowledged earlier, the water authorities are among the biggest polluters. The outrageous behaviour of Yorkshire Water has been adequately exposed in the Yorkshire Post. In the area of Northumbrian Water, which is closer to the area that I represent, 36 of the 190 sewerage stations were in breach of the limits in 1986. That is not a very hopeful sign of what might happen after privatisation.
In the area covered by Anglian Water an exciting new concept in pollution has been developed, called the sewage lagoon. Anglian Water has been putting its untreated sewage into the sea. Now, it has done a deal with several Suffolk farmers to dig deep and large lagoons in their fields. It will sink untreated sewage into them. The authority tried to persuade Essex county council to do that, but the county council, God bless it, would have none of it. But in Suffolk they are made of weaker stuff. These large lagoons will cover 40 m by 30 m and be 2·5 m to 3 m deep. A 6 ft high chain-link fence will surround them. It will take 125 lorries to fill them with 500,000 gallons of sewage. The objective is that the content of these lagoons will be sprayed over the fields, which will take 10,000 to 20,000 gallons per acre.
I believe that the first of these sewage lagoons will be at the village of Troston. The sewage is being delivered in unmarked lorries, despite the trouble taken by Anglian Water to design a logo for them. It is not very proud of this particular enterprise. It seems to be in a rush, as no doubt the authority wants to get this out of the way before the National Rivers Authority is functioning. Other lagoons are proposed at Nactow and at Sizewell, to go with its nuclear power station, and at Alderton, which I believe is a heritage coastal village. Those areas are not represented by Opposition Members, but by Conservative Members, so in due course perhaps we can expect to hear something from them. No doubt their constituents who live in those areas will be mightily upset. It does not take a great deal


of imagination to understand the dangers to the water supply, not to mention the smell, that the new sewage lagoons will have if one happens to have one in one's backyard.
10.15 pm
As we know, there has been a long history of inactivity on the part of all the water authorities in prosecuting offenders. I shall refer again to the example of Northumbrian Water. Between 1980 and 1986 it prosecuted just seven out of 4,272 breaches of the sewage regulations. That inactivity over a long period is now combined with an arrogance and excessive and obsessive secrecy that does not inspire confidence in the plans for the future after privatisation.
In addition, some of the biggest polluters will be buying shares in the new privatised water companies. Indeed, some are already represented on the boards. They have been put there courtesy of the Secretary of State, who has turfed off elected local councillors and put in, in Northumbria for example, Mr. Norman Pryn who, if one runs one's eye down the list of directors of Northumbrian Water, one discovers to be the deputy group secretary of ICI Billingham, which we all know in the north-east to be one of the major polluters. As one runs one's eye further down the list one runs across the name of Mr. Ralph Iley, who turns out to be the group development director of the Cookson Group plc, which has nothing to do with travel or romantic novels; it is a chemical company.
I cast no aspersions on those two gentlemen—no doubt they do their jobs to the best of their ability—but there is a clear conflict of interest that will be obvious to every hon. Member and to every person of goodwill between the interests of privatised water company and those of the polluter. It is not good enough for the polluters to get a major stake in our industry, which is what now seems to be about to happen. The only way to inspire confidence is to create a strong and genuinely independent National Rivers Authority with the power and the resources to impose serious penalties.
New clause 2 addresses the question of the NRA, when it is set up, contracting back some of its key functions to the water authorities, the activities of which it is supposed impartially to be supervising. This matter came up in Committee on 10 January. I quoted then to the Minister the words of Mr. Bob Smith, who is the director of operations at Northumbrian Water, who told a staff meeting in December that Northumbrian Water would be bidding for many NRA contracts, including the control room, maintenance of telemetry on weirs; the radio system; vehicle maintenance; buying fish; the berth of the fisheries protection vessel; administering the salaries of the NRA staff and, above all, that it proposed to bid for laboratory services. In other words, the samples that will be taken from the polluters that we have been talking about will be tested in the laboratories of the organisation that may well be doing much of the polluting.
When that was mentioned in Committee on 10 January, it brought a number of assurances from Ministers. They said that it was a legitimate point and that we must all think seriously about it. However, when one talks to the staff of the proposed NRA—that is difficult these days

because they are scared having received lots of warnings about threats to their jobs—they are not at all confident that the NRA will be independent.
The opportunities for the manipulation of samples are manifest and obvious. They include the time at which one takes the samples, the number of samples taken, whether one's results are published in gobbledegook that is incomprehensible to the average citizen, and what action it is proposed to take.
The Northumbria branch of the NRA will be housed in the same building as the Northumbrian water authority. There will be a close overlap between the managements, and there is already a question of a lack of resources. I am told that the tentative NRA set-up in the Northumbrian water authority area has already asked for greater frequency of sampling and has been told—in the words of one potential member of the NRA staff—to "Sod off." I am told that, even as we sit here, the Northumbrian water authority is looking for ways of reducing consents, and that there is now being drawn up a list of works where standards can be varied without spending any more money. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), in his introductory remarks, rightly recalled—as it pays us all to recall, at regular intervals —the immortal words of Mr. Keith Court, who comes from the home of what we now know as the Camelford poisoner. Mr. Court said that he wanted the best staff because he wanted them to outwit the regulators. If the National Rivers Authority is to enjoy public confidence, it must be seen to be independent of those whose activities it is supposed to be supervising.
New clause 15 raises the most central question of all: what kind of body is the National Rivers Authority supposed to be? Will it be just another toothless Tory quango in the great tradition of the Police Complaints Authority or the Press Council, to become, in due course, the object of public ridicule? Or will it be an independent organisation, free of vested interests, a body with the resources and the will to face up to what we all know to be a major national problem? I have to say that the signs are not auspicious. The Government offer us a lot of interesting rhetoric. Some of us can agree with that rhetoric from time to time, but will it be matched by action? These new clauses contain nothing that contradicts the Government's principle of privatisation, but they put to a severe test the rhetoric about the circumstances in which privatisation will take place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) should not be reading a newspaper in the Chamber.

Mr. Ridley: In my opinion, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) got it right: throughout the debates on this Bill the Opposition have failed to find any flaws in it. Instead, they have resorted to highly dubious, irrelevant and misleading stunts and scare stories to try to muddle the public and themselves. Indeed, the paucity of thought among Opposition Members that brings these four new clauses up for debate is an absolute tribute to the draftmanship of the Bill. Two of the new clauses are totally unnecessary, and the other two are totally undesirable.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) came in again with his stale, dog-eared file of old quotes, leaks and cooked figures, to which he has treated us ever


since the Bill appeared. He even got a leak, about which he boasted to The Guardian, by squinting at his neighbour —one of my civil servants and reading the papers on his lap. That is the standard of the information that the hon. Gentleman stoops to, and it is typical of him.

Dr. Cunningham: For the sake of greater accuracy, in which the Secretary of State is not interested, perhaps he had better he clear and have it on the record that it was not I who observed on the lap of one of his civil servants the minute which said that all the substance had been removed from his speech. It was someone else who observed it and who conveyed the information to me.

Mr. Ridley: I accept that. It only confirms my view that The Guardian is not an accurate newspaper because what I quoted is what The Guardian said.
The hon. Member for Copeland has got us into a muddle. On Second Reading he said:
I say, without any hesitation, that a Labour Government would not allow private monopolies in water to exist—and we shall take them into public ownership."—[Official Report, 7 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 345.]
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) foolishly relied upon that. The only way to discover the policy of the Opposition is if, by chance, it is leaked. It is extraordinary. Their policy is kept so secret that nobody knows what it is until it is leaked. It was leaked to The Sunday Times last weekend. I shall be happy to tell the hon. Member for Carlisle what his policy is. He does not know, but I am in the privileged position of being able to tell him. I quote again:
Instead of renationalising the companies, Labour would create new regulatory bodies with tough new powers and force the industries to improve their services.
That is why we have the demonstration of the new-found realism in the four new clauses; it is to substantiate what the Labour party is trying to maintain—that it now believes in private ownership, together with——

Mr. Martlew: rose——

Mr. Ridley: I shall give way, but I want to finish the point.
Therefore, we come to the NRA. I have to tell the hon. Member for Copeland that I thought up the NRA and announced it before the last election when he did not even know how to pronounce the word "environment". He had never heard of it. For him now to suggest that the NRA should be stiffened in some way in order to show that his credentials are better than they are is absolute rubbish. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) suggested that the NRA was being foisted on the Government. I can tell him that I foisted the NRA on him. I am delighted that he is so pleased to see it.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle.(Mr. Leigh), Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and Leicestershire, North-West, who were right to welcome the creation of the NRA and to believe that it was perhaps the most important environmental protection agency, if I may coin a phrase, that has ever been put before the House. That is how I see it.

Mr. Allan Roberts: If it is such a powerful environmental agency, why is the Secretary of State allowing it to subcontract its regulatory functions back to

the private water companies, thus recreating the gamekeeper and the poacher being one and the same again?

Mr. Ridley: I will come to that. I am trying to answer every point made in the debate. If hon. Members do not interrupt, I will have more chance of doing so.
The other muddle that the hon. Member for Copeland tried to put across was that higher standards are required. The Opposition accept that, but then they try to blame the resultant higher costs on privatisation. Privatisation in itself will tend to reduce costs, but I have never denied that higher environmental standards will increase them. In fact, I have gone out of my way from the beginning to make that clear.
I can perhaps help the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). He asked me to confirm what I said before. I will. As I said on Second Reading, an initial estimate of the additional cost to the water authorities of the compliance programmes now required under the European Community drinking water directive, the EC bathing waters directive and the sewage treatment works discharge consents under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 is approximately £2·4 billion. That is equivalent to an extra 7·5 per cent. to 12·5 per cent. in real terms in financial costs over the next 10 years. That is little more than 1 per cent. per year in real terms. As I have said, that is over and above the increases that would have been required without those additional programmes. That is just a ready reckoner so that the hon. Gentleman can assess its scale. He said that he thought that it would cost £1 billion for the country. My best estimate is £2·4 billion, and even that comes out only at the figure that I have quoted.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ridley: Quickly, as I have much more to say.

Mr. Wigley: I should be grateful for a quick answer. When the right hon. Gentleman made his statement on Second Reading before Christmas, was he not suggesting that the overall increase in costs would be more than 12·5 per cent.? That was most certainly the interpretation of the papers referred to in the Financial Times.

Mr. Ridley: It is a quick reference point in the hon Gentleman's memory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) was a little unfair, because he said that the South West water authority's prices had gone up by 92 per cent. since the beginning of the decade. In fact, that relates to the cash figure. In real terms, the figure is about 23 per cent. That would have been a more accurate figure for him to quote.
I would like to say a word in reply to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), because I cannot allow him to cast aspersions upon the validity of the Bill to protect the interests of fishermen. Fishing is a sport that both he and I pursue. He expressed fears that reservoirs would be commercially exploited to the detriment of local angling bodies. With clause 7, we impose a duty on the companies to put their waters to best use for recreation, and we make clear in the code of practice that that means meeting a wide range of interests and protecting the proper interests of existing established users. Those duties are enforceable under clause 19, and the Secretary of State of the day must have regard to how


far the code has been followed in exercising his enforcement powers. If he neglects to do so, he is open to challenge in the courts.
I shall refer the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney to clause 151 of the Bill. That provides that where the Secretary of State approves an order authorising works in connection with the construction or operation of a reservoir, he may include in that order requirements for the provision of recreational facilities for local people. I hope that that gives him the reassurance that he sought.

Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. However, will he simply tell us that there is no way that our reservoirs can become the subject of commercial bidding, as our river waters have become?

Mr. Ridley: I hoped that the protections that I have set out would have the exact effect——

Mr. Rowlands: Yes or no?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, that is right.
I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) that the planning procedures that at the moment protect land in many parts of the country, especially near Rutland water, will remain inviolate and will continue in force in exactly the way that he has asked. I hope that that is the assurance that he seeks, but I shall be delighted to confirm it in writing if he wishes.

Mr. Allan Roberts: It is not in the Bill.

Mr. Ridley: Planning is not part of the Bill. My hon. Friend asked me a question and I have just as much right to answer it as any other question.
New clause 15 would require the NRA to prepare and publish at some unspecified time in the future a plan for the carrying out of its functions. Some 15 functions are mentioned and, although they are all worthy, one could make the list as many or as few as one liked. However, making plans betrays a lack of urgency. Opposition Members are under the naive fallacy that to produce a plan is to solve a problem. Above all, there is that detachment from the real world of events and actions.
The amendment is pure 1970s or even before. It reminds me of the late Lord George-Brown and his famous national plan. It resulted in inaction. I believe that action is important. In any event, it is not appropriate for a body such as the NRA. Many of its key functions are those of a regulatory authority, responding to applications from others and policing their activities. It must be reactive, able to respond to events, whether they are pollution incidents or flooding emergencies.
One speaker after another from the Opposition Benches wondered whether the NRA would be tough enough and quick enough to move in. If it spent the next five years producing a plan, it would not be tough and quick enough to do that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) rightly pointed out, the fear is that the NRA will have too much power—the mortmain of the industry, he called it—and I was happy to hear the balance between both sides of the House on whether we had the powers of the NRA right. I firmly believe that we have.
I was delighted by the quick mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), and the fact that I was able to assure him—as I shall assure my hon. Friend the Member of Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) shortly —that the precise points of new clause I are covered by provisions already in the Bill. With characteristic loyalty and enthusiasm, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said that he would not be prepared to break his word to the Patronage Secretary and vote against the clause. I was wondering whether, if I said that I supported the clause, he would then vote against it. That is the logic of his position, but as my hon. Friend is not in his place, I need not pursue that further.
The new clause has two subsections. Subsection (1) simply states that the provisions in clause 3, part I of the Bill, for controlling and reducing pollution shall have effect for the purpose of controlling and reducing pollution. I do not argue against that. The Labour party has rightly grasped what the Bill is about. Subsection (2) of the new clause is designed to ensure that, where possible, he who causes pollution pays to have it cleaned up and to prevent it from happening again.
The two subsections have one thing in common: they are both unnecessary, and I need not delay the House beyond the one point that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton raised. Subsection (1) is little more than a tautology, since the purpose of the control of pollution provisions in chapter I of part III of the Bill is, by definition, controlling pollution. What is more, our declared objective of controlling pollution and improving water quality is built in, clearly and inescapably, to the legislation itself.
Thus, under clause 102, the Secretary of State and the NRA have the duty to exercise their powers under chapter I so as to achieve the statutory objectives set under clause 101. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton had seen clause 101 but had not realised its inter-reaction with clause 102. In the words of clause 101(1), these objectives—which will be set after public consultation—will be
For the purpose of maintaining and improving the quality of controlled waters".

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My point was not about the objectives but about whether forcing the polluter to pay was discretionary or mandatory.

Mr. Ridley: That is the point I just answered. There is a duty under clause 102 to make the NRA achieve the statutory objectives set out in clause 101. So it is mandatory, not discretionary.
New clause 2 is designed to deal with contractual agreements between the NRA and the undertakers. I see no reason why these two bodies should not contract between each other, or indeed why the river authorities—the river companies, as they will be—should not contract with the NRA, except in those cases where it would affect the NRA's ability to be clear about standards or to engage in prosecutions.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: rose——

Mr. Ridley: May I finish my point, then I will give way to my hon. Friend?
The hon. Member for Carlisle was particularly concerned about laboratory work and taking samples. I see no reason why contractual arrangements with the plcs


should not include laboratory work provided that there are adequate safeguards to ensure the independence of the NRA.
The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, but the NRA advisory committee has already put forward a set of safeguards, which we have endorsed. First, all samples must be collected by NRA staff or under direct NRA control. Secondly, there must be guaranteed anonymity of samples so that there can be no question of a person doing the analysis knowing where the sample has come from. Thirdly, there must be proper arrangements for independent audit or cross-checking so that there are frequent checks that the work is being done to the NRA's specification. That is the requirement that he and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) properly seek and that I am able to give as part of a published document for their benefit.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: On the specific point of the way in which samples are analysed, the Secretary of State has said that there will be anonymity of samples. Surely the laboratories of the water companies will already have their own samples from their own outflows and will know which samples come from those outflows. So there will not be anonymity as far as the technicians from those laboratories are concerned.

Mr. Ridley: That is not true. The NRA has made sufficient arrangements from its own laboratories to be able to safeguard precisely the point that the hon. Lady has raised.
I come finally to new clause 20——

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ridley: I have only three minutes left.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I asked my right hon. Friend to give way earlier and he said that he would do so.

Mr. Ridley: I hope my hon. Friend will understand. He has not been present during the debate and I have to reply to other hon. Members who have spoken.
New clause 20 is an act of land nationalisation proposed as a new clause on Report by the Opposition. It is indeed an extraordinary proposition: that we are able to trust a company, subject to the full and proper regulation which we shall provide, to provide drinking water and dispose of sewage—functions of great importance—but we cannot trust it to own an acre of land. Just as the provision of water and sewerage services will be regulated, so already——

Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State says we cannot trust private enterprise to own an acre of land. It is not quite that simple. We are talking about selling to private enterprise 500,000 acres of land in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sensitive environments. The Opposition certainly do not trust private enterprise to look after that well.

Mr. Ridley: I am absolutely delighted that this Bill achieves the privatisation of nearly 500,000 acres of land. I am sure that my hon. Friends are just as pleased as I am. I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's sourness and chagrin that his backdoor nationalisation plan to get hold of this land is frustrated by this Bill—[Interruption.] This is what it is all about. It is about the Opposition wishing

to nationalise as much land as possible. They have not heard of planning permission. They have not understood that land cannot be developed without planning permission, whether it belongs to a water authority, a privatised water company, the Government or a private individual. To ignore the strict paraphernalia of planning controls, particularly in a national park, shows the ignorance of the hon. Member for Copeland and the Labour party. Does the hon. Member for Copeland really want to change the NRA into a vast property company which is able to develop or sell land?
The Labour party's motive is not to protect the land —if that were so it would opt for planning. Its motive is to keep in public ownership as much land as it can. Clause four rides again—new clause 1 will kill it.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: As the Prime Minister might say, the case for the Bill has been badly presented—again. The Secretary of State chose not to serve on the Standing Committee on the Water Bill, so today was his first opportunity since Second Reading to make an impact on the Bill. Following his performance this evening, we well understand that he can have a negative impact on the Bill and I wish him and his Minister well for any future opportunities that they have to present it to the country. The more the Government talk in the terms used by the Secretary of State today, the more the Opposition will benefit from the Government's privatisation plans.
Perhaps we should not be too surprised at the Secretary of State's contribution. The Prime Minister recently praised him for being a brilliant artist and civil engineer. I cannot comment on his artistic talent—my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) assures me that he is a good artist—but I trust that in his retirement he will find plenty of time to practise that hobby. I was interested to read in the New Civil Engineer, the magazine of the Institution of Civil Engineers, that the Secretary of State —[Interruption.] The Prime Minister has been talking about the Bill and about the Secretary of State's talents. As we missed him in Committee, we should spend a minute——

Sir Anthony Grant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this relevant to the new clause?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) will have regard to what has been said.

Mrs. Taylor: I have a great deal of regard to the relevance of civil engineering to the water industry. As one who is married to a civil engineer and knows the work of the profession in this industry, I was interested to read that the Secretary of State has not been a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers since the 1970s. Clearly, the Prime Minister is nearly as far behind the times as the Secretary of State.
I shall return to the specific amendment about which the Secretary of State eventually said a word or two. The Opposition support the new clauses because they wish to strengthen the National Rivers Authority and to make it work in practice. We should not forget how the NRA came about. When the Secretary of State spoke earlier, it seemed as though his mind was playing tricks on him. He seemed to think that the NRA had emerged from his own mind, with no suggestions from anyone else. Perhaps he has


forgotten that the original water privatisation proposals made no mention of the National Rivers Authority. It was only when the Labour party and other environmentalist and conservationist groups put pressure on the right hon. Gentleman ——

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady must do better than that. She may not be aware that I did not make the original proposals.

Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is right about that, but he took them over and I did not notice him dissenting from the original Conservative proposals. Anyone who believes that the Government or their Ministers are green has a lot to learn. I am sure that, on reflection, the Secretary of State—and certainly the Minister—will wish that these privatisation proposals had suffered the same fate as the previous ones, and had been withdrawn late one Thursday evening to put Ministers out of their misery.
The National Rivers Authority was introduced into the proposals only to make them less unpalatable, and to appease all the interest groups which were so opposed to them. At present the authority is not strong enough. Opposition Members are not alone in saying that. Anglers, environmentalists, conservationists and the Council for the Protection of Rural England—all of whom have studied the Bill carefully—agree with us, as do one or two Conservative Members. They support the principle of the NRA but feel that it is too weak.
There is no doubt about the need for a strong body to counter the pollution problem. Incidents of pollution have doubled in the past 10 years under the present Government, and river quality has declined for the first time since records began. We feel—this is why we have tabled new clause 1—that it is time to get tougher with the polluters and to stop turning a blind eye to the problem.
We have heard this evening of problems in many different parts of the country. I consider my part of Yorkshire to be typical. Last year, 140 companies broke their consents with regard to pollution. Many of them were big companies such as British Steel, British Coal, BP, Tarmac and many large chemical firms. Some exceeded their permitted limits by 100 times, but only a tiny fraction were prosecuted. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) pointed out, on a national basis only 1 per cent. are prosecuted.

Mr. Ridley: To a large extent I agree with the hon. Lady, but if she wants those things put right, why does she oppose the Bill when that is what it will do?

Mrs. Taylor: The Secretary of State is well aware of the offer that the Opposition have made, and have repeated on several occasions. We will support the establishment and, indeed, the strengthening of the National Rivers Authority because that, rather than privatisation, is the way to deal with pollution.
In recent years many polluters have made the simple decision that it is cheaper to flout the law—even if they are caught—than to invest in avoiding pollution. We all pick up the bill in our water rates while the polluter gets off lightly. The Government's attitude, agreed with the water authorities, has been to try to persuade the polluters to be good boys, but that strategy simply has not worked. Now

the Government are pushing it further by not allowing the National Rivers Authority to take decisions. The Government are pre-empting the role of the NRA by inviting water authorities to reduce standards of sewage treatment plants in advance of privatisation and the establishment of the NRA.
In a letter dated 21 November 1988, the Department invited water authorities to apply for relaxations for many treatment plants which were breaching consents. Last month, a near-frantic letter pleaded with local authorities to submit plans not for the improvement of those treatment plants but for relaxations to let treatment plants in breach of consents off the hook. Although we questioned the Minister frequently in Committee, he has given no date by which he guarantees that improvements in those treatment plants will be achieved. In all our discussions in Committee and in the answers that the Minister has been forced to supply, little attention has been paid to the reasons why sewage treatment plants are unable to meet their targets and are breaching their consents. It is often trade effluent which overloads the system. New clause 1, which establishes the principle that the polluter pays, will help to prevent that. On selected occasions Ministers have used and promoted that principle, but they are not consistent and cite it only when it suits them.
Some Conservative Members have reservations about the principle that the polluters should pay. This evening we learned that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) has reservations even about the existence of the National Rivers Authority. That is not surprising as he is chairman, or at least a member of the privatisation steering committee which has been advising and assisting the Conservative-appointed chairmen of the water authorities on how to deal with privatisation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland pointed out earlier, the water chairmen are gearing up for privatisation. It is therefore not surprising that the hon. Gentleman resists new clause 1. A letter from the secretary of the Water Authorities Association states:
Any further strengthening of the regulatory framework now put forward would have significantly adverse consequences for the successful management of the privatised company.
The CBI has been briefing Conservative Members and its latest brief makes clear what it wants:
We are seeking to ensure that the Government does not create a situation which would be completely unacceptable to all those discharging trade effluents".
That gets to the nub of the Government's resistance. A strong NRA and a strong regulatory framework will affect profits. The hon. Member for Pudsey was more honest than the Minister about that.
Perhaps the Secretary of State was more honest than he has been throughout the proceedings of the Bill when he intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland. When my hon. Friend referred to new clause 20, which suggests that the water authorities' land should, if privatisation goes ahead, pass to the National Rivers Authority, rather than to the water companies so as to ensure that the land stays in the public sector, the Secretary of State asked what was to stop the NRA developing the land. His first thought was not whether the Bill would provide better protection for the land, but whether the NRA would be able to develop the land. The Bill is about making money out of developing that land. The Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag this evening. He should


retitle the Bill because it is not about water privatisation, but about the privatisation of the assets of the water authorities.

It being Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [6 February] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 316.

Division No.126]
[11 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Faulds, Andrew


Adley, Robert
Fearn, Ronald


Allason, Rupert
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Allen, Graham
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Anderson, Donald
Fisher, Mark


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flannery, Martin


Armstrong, Hilary
Flynn, Paul


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foster, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foulkes, George


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fraser, John


Barnes. Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fyfe, Maria


Battle. John
Galbraith, Sam


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Galloway, George


Beckett, Margaret
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Beith, A. J.
George, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bermingham, Gerald
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bidwell, Sydney
Gordon, Mildred


Blair, Tony
Graham, Thomas


Blunkett, David
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Boyes, Roland
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Buckley, George J.
Heffer, Eric S.


Caborn, Richard
Henderson, Doug


Callaghan, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Home Robertson, John


Cartwright, John
Hood, Jimmy


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clay, Bob
Howells, Geraint


Clelland, David
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Crowther, Stan
Janner, Greville


Cryer, Bob
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cummings, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Cunningham, Dr John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dalyell, Tam
Kennedy, Charles


Darling, Alistair
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Leadbitter, Ted


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Leighton, Ron


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dixon, Don
Lewis, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Doran, Frank
Livsey, Richard


Douglas, Dick
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Loyden, Eddie


Eadie, Alexander
McAllion, John


Eastham, Ken
McAvoy, Thomas


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McCartney, Ian


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Fatchett, Derek
McFall, John





McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Rooker, Jeff


McKelvey, William
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McLeish, Henry
Rowlands, Ted


McNamara, Kevin
Ruddock, Joan


McTaggart, Bob
Salmond, Alex


McWilliam, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Madden, Max
Sheerman, Barry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marek, Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Clare


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Snape, Peter


Meacher, Michael
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Spearing, Nigel


Michael, Alun
Steel, Rt Hon David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Stott, Roger


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Strang, Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri
Straw, Jack


Morley, Elliott
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Turner, Dennis


Mowlam, Marjorie
Vaz, Keith


Mullin, Chris
Wall, Pat


Murphy, Paul
Wallace, James


Nellist, Dave
Walley, Joan


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, William
Wareing, Robert N.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Patchett, Terry
Wigley, Dafydd


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Pike, Peter L.
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wilson, Brian


Quin, Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Radice, Giles
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Randall, Stuart
Winterton, Nicholas


Redmond, Martin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Worthington, Tony


Reid, Dr John
Wray, Jimmy


Richardson, Jo
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)



Robertson, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Allen Adams.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowis, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Amess, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Amos, Alan
Brazier, Julian


Arbuthnot, James
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Ashby, David
Browne, John (Winchester)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Atkins, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Buck, Sir Antony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Budgen, Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
Burt, Alistair


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butcher, John


Batiste, Spencer
Butler, Chris


Bellingham, Henry
Butterfill, John


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Benyon, W.
Carrington, Matthew


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carttiss, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cash, William


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chapman, Sydney


Body, Sir Richard
Chope, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Churchill, Mr


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Boswell, Tim
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Peter
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Conway, Derek






Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Henderson, Doug


Cope, Rt Hon John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Couchman, James
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Cran, James
Hinchliffe, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hind, Kenneth


Curry, David
Holland, Stuart


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hood, Jimmy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Day, Stephen
Howard, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Dicks, Terry
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Dorrell, Stephen
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Dover, Den
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Dunn, Bob
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Durant, Tony
Hunter, Andrew


Dykes, Hugh
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Eggar, Tim
Irvine, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Irving, Charles


Fallon, Michael
Jack, Michael


Favell, Tony
Jackson, Robert


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Janman, Tim


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Jessel, Toby


Fishburn, John Dudley
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Forman, Nigel
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Forth, Eric
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Key, Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus
Kilfedder, James


Franks, Cecil
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Freeman, Roger
Kirkhope, Timothy


French, Douglas
Knapman, Roger


Fry, Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Gale, Roger
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Gardiner, George
Knowles, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Knox, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lang, Ian


Goodlad, Alastair
Latham, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Lawrence, Ivan


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Gorst, John
Lee, John (Pendle)


Gow, Ian
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Lilley, Peter


Gregory, Conal
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Ground, Patrick
Lord, Michael


Grylls, Michael
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Hague, William
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
McCrindle, Robert


Hampson, Dr Keith
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Hanley, Jeremy
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Hannam, John
Maclean, David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr')
McLoughlin, Patrick


Harman, Ms Harriet
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Harris, David
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Madel, David


Hawkins, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Malins, Humfrey


Haynes, Frank
Mans, Keith


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Maples, John





Marlow, Tony
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shersby, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sims, Roger


Mates, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maude, Hon Francis
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mellor, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Miller, Sir Hal
Speller, Tony


Mills, Iain
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Squire, Robin


Mitchell, Sir David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moate, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Monro, Sir Hector
Steen, Anthony


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stern, Michael


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stevens, Lewis


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moss, Malcolm
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Neale, Gerrard
Sumberg, David


Nelson, Anthony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Norris, Steve
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Page, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Paice, James
Thorne, Neil


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thurnham, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Tracey, Richard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tredinnick, David


Pawsey, James
Trippier, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Trotter, Neville


Porter, David (Waveney)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Portillo, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Powell, William (Corby)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Price, Sir David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Raffan, Keith
Waldegrave, Hon William


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walden, George


Rathbone, Tim
Waller, Gary


Redwood, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rhodes James, Robert
Warren, Kenneth


Riddick, Graham
Watts, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wheeler, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Widdecombe, Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wiggin, Jerry


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wilshire, David


Rost, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Rowe, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Woodcock, Mike


Sackville, Hon Tom
Yeo, Tim


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sayeed, Jonathan



Scott, Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. David Lightbown.


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

REGIONAL RIVERS ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 3, line 14, at end insert
`and it shall be the duty of the Authority in determining the regions for which advisory committees are established and maintained to ensure that one of those regions consists wholly or mainly of or of most of Wales'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Clause 3

TRANSFER OF THE WATER AUTHORITIES' FUNCTIONS ETC.

Ms. Joan Walley: I beg to move amendment No. 113, in page 3, line 36, at end insert—
'(1A) No scheme made under Schedule 2 to this Act shall have effect where it would operate to terminate, vary or otherwise affect the application of any management agreement or restrictive covenant which existed at the transfer date in relation to land or other property, except insofar as any such modification is necessary to give effect to the agreement or restrictive covenant.'.
This is one of a series of amendments that we shall move because we have not had the assurances that we believe we needed from the Minister in Committee. When we discuss amendments tomorrow relating to access to land, it will become clear that privatisation is about selling off assets, not about the green initiatives with which the Government have tried to pull the wool over our eyes.
The amendment is intended to ensure that existing management agreements and restrictive covenants govern-ing the use of land carry over from the present water authorities to the new plcs. The amendment would ensure that such arrangements were included in any land transfer scheme. The Opposition wish that we had not had to table these amendments, but, as I have explained, we had to because we were given no assurances on this matter in Committee.
Organisations such as the Ramblers Association, the Peak Parks and the Council for the Protection of Rural England, about which we have heard a great deal this evening, are concerned about what is going to happen. Their concern has intensified, and has been set out in the excellent report, "Liquid Assets". My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) will speak about these issues later.
The debates in Committee gave rise to questions about management agreements to do with recreation, access and wildlife; such agreements are by definition discretionary. We do not want the agreements to be discretionary: we want them enshrined in the legislation so that we can be absolutely certain that management agreements between local authorities, voluntary organisations such as the RSPB and water authorities continue after privatisation.
The Minister said in Committee that the concessionary use that we are concerned about would be determined at a local level, through the planning procedures about which we have heard so much from the Secretary of State. Why could the Minister offer us no guarantees about the continuation of these agreements? Why was it not possible for him to assure us that the management agreements that were so willingly entered into by the voluntary organisations and local authorities with water authorities would continue?
The Minister also said in Committee that what we already have constitutes a sound basis for the continuation of policies. We have already heard from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that there is little scope for undertakers seriously to alter predecessors' policies. Why should he mention that unless he is concerned about it? We are given further cause for concern by the fact that the code of practice in clause 9 has no teeth, as we established in Committee.
The code incorporates a prescription that policies for opening up land will continue. The Opposition are genuinely concerned that very important management agreements relating to all aspects of our countryside including hedging and wildlife, as well as the important issues of access that we shall consider in detail tomorrow, are in danger of being lost. If the Government were genuinely concerned about conservation and what happens to our countryside, especially the countryside closely connected to the water supply, rather than just two areas that the Minister has identified, it would be a simple matter for the Government to reach an agreement, so that an amendment could be moved tonight to ensure that any concessionary arrangements were included in land transfer schemes. We would then be in a much better position to judge the true intentions of the Government for the privatisation of the water industry.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Thank you for calling me to speak on this important group of amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be almost tempting to agree with Her Majesty's Opposition in their amendments were it not for the fact that on Thursday 2 February at 9.30 pm a considerably better new clause was proposed by my hon. and good Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) which the Minister undertook to study carefully. My hon. Friend and I sponsored new clause 17 in Committee.
The Minister for Water and Planning took away the new clause and most kindly undertook to consider it favourably. His exact words were:
I cannot undertake here and now that we shall ultimately adopt this or a similar proposal, but we shall consider it in a positive spirit. I have considerable sympathy with it … "—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 2 February 1989; c. 798.]
Of course, the Minister will recall that in my constituency I have a large area of Dartmoor national park. I also have a particular area of outstanding natural beauty called Burrator reservoir. Other right hon. and hon. Members have national park land in their constituencies. Within that national park land in the United Kingdom, 130,000 acres come under the national water authorities. It is that land that we are concerned about.
I wholeheartedly back the privatisation of water. It is most important that the water industry should be split up in the tripartite way that we have proposed. But I am concerned that, despite our reassurances, the general public are still worried that access to areas of great natural beauty will be constrained under the Act, and that their recreational facilities, which for many people are surprisingly limited, will be curtailed. Their recreation is surprisingly limited, although people living in big cities of course go out by car and perhaps by bus, and enjoy enormously the beauty that they find in the national parks, which of course include the Broads.
I am worried, therefore, that this public concern will not be adequately met and not be properly taken on board unless the Minister is able to come back on these important points, especially in the context of our new clause 17 in Committee, rather than the group of amendments before us.
South West Water, for example, is led by an outstanding chairman in Mr. Keith Court, who will be a most able and brilliant chairman of the new public limited company. Gordon Bielby will head the National Rivers Authority.
Excellent agreements have been built up with national park authorities, water bailiffs and staff at all levels of the various organisations that also deal with national park land. I want that understanding to be codified. I do not want it to be only a grace-and-favour arrangement. It is important that the national parks and the Broads authorities are properly consulted on parts of their land that are of special beauty or that have special recreational facilities for the public. I badly need such provisions to be written into the Bill.
I call on the Minister when he replies to give me a reassurance that these public anxieties have been properly understood and that they will be matched by suitable regulations. I am confident that the Minister is listening extremely carefully and that he will respond in a wholly positive way. After all, the Secretary of State is a natural and proper conservationist who has a full commitment to the preservation of the countryside and to the recreational facilities that the public so rightly enjoy within the confines of the national park boundaries and of the Broads.

Mr. Wigley: I, too, have national park land in my constituency. Much of the land in Wales that is owned by the Welsh water authority falls within the category of "national park land" or "land of outstanding natural beauty", where public access is a matter of considerable concern.
I do not rise to put again the arguments that we had in Committee, but to follow on from our previous debate on new clause 1 when the Secretary of State possibly stunned his hon. Friends and certainly shocked the Opposition when he said that the main purpose of the legislation was the privatisation of 500,000 acres of land. Perhaps he was a little careless in his choice of words, but that is what he said. If that is so, we are concerned about the implications for land which is held by water authorities and will be privatised and for land which is either in national parks or of high amenity value to the general public.
Will the Minister tell me whether, in the circumstances that I am about to describe, the new water plcs will have the right to act in the manner that I am about to describe? Let us suppose that the plcs felt strongly that it was important that the land be preserved as a public amenity, albeit with safeguards for their own needs to draw water from that land, and that the plcs wanted to transfer that land from their own ownership and management to that of another public body such as the National Trust, or to set up trustees of their own just to look after the land rather than regarding it as part of a commercial package. Would they have the right to do that? We need assurances about that in view of the Secretary of State's statement when he replied to the previous debate. It is particularly pertinent

to amendment No. 113, which relates to rights of access and the conditions that will be transferred when privatisation takes place.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Amendment No. 113 causes me a good deal of uncertainty. I am principally concerned about the land around many of the reservoirs in my constituency in the Lake district which are crucial to the supply of water to many urban conurbations, especially around Manchester.
The history of this is that much of the land—I am thinking especially of Haweswater—was acquired under the Manchester Corporation Act 1919. I am also thinking of the 22,500 acres that were acquired from Lowther Estates, which owned land in my constituency. As I understand it, the 1919 Act gave a right of pre-emption enabling Lowther Estates to purchase all or any of the area acquired by Manchester corporation at that time, if it were ever sold. That was extremely important.
What is uncertain at the moment—this is extremely important in terms of access and all the other matters with which the amendment deals—is what the position of land of that sort will be after this legislation comes into operation. From the point of view of access, conservation, and so on, the record of previous owners is exemplary. For instance, at the instigation and with the encouragement of Lowther Estates, land within and just outside the area has recently been made an SSSI. Over the years Lowther Estates has worked extremely closely with the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, and I submit that its record is exemplary.
11.30 pm
I pay tribute to the Minister for his extreme kindness in making sure that I received this evening a reply to a letter about this matter that I sent to him in January. I regret that the reply does not make clear the legal position in respect of the rights of pre-emption that were granted over this land when it was originally sold to Manchester corporation in 1919. This is an extremely important matter, which ought to be put right. I can assure the Minister that if he cannot explain the situation—I fully appreciate that he may have difficulty doing so today—a good many questions will be asked in another place.
The basic concern of Lowther Estates is to ensure that the rights of pre-emption that were enshrined in the original sale in 1919 are maintained. My understanding is that if such an assurance can be given there need be no uncertainty about the future of the property. As I have said, Lowther Estates has an exemplary record in respect of conservation of the environment and other such matters. This is a serious problem. Before making up my mind about the amendment, I must have answers to the questions that I have posed.

Mr. Allen McKay: I am sure that, even at this time of the night, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have recognised the importance of this amendment. Parts of the constituencies of most hon. Members who have taken part in this debate consist either of national parks or of land adjacent to national parks. I am one such Member: part of my constituency is adjacent to the High Peak district, which is enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people from all over England between this time of the year and when winter sets in—and, indeed, after winter has set in.
When the Minister talks about a code of practice, he is being very optimistic. A code of practice is effective only if


people are prepared to obey it; it is absolutely useless when someone decides that it is no good to him. We have difficulty keeping statutory ways open by a code of practice, never mind voluntary ones. Time after time hon. Members receive complaints about statutory rights of way being ploughed over, built upon or built around and people have to get access by different ways from the statutory rights of way that have been there not for decades but for generations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and I had the privilege of going to Ladybower in the High Peak district, which hundreds of thousands of people will visit this year for various reasons. When we consider Ladybower, we realise the fears of the people about the effect of the Bill on rights of ways. Preparations are already being made to put a turnstile there and thousands of people will be denied access unless they pay. From that single point people go horse riding, rambling and cycling; sometimes they go by car. Access is by voluntary agreement with the rangers, the local authority and the water authority. By courtesy of Yorkshire Water the rangers have a place on water authority land. All that is in danger.
We have to protect rights that have been negotiated and that have been in existence for generations. Rambling associations, fishermen's associations, motoring associa-tions and horse-riding associations are all concerned about the issue because, like us, they realise that decades of planning and negotiation will go out of the window. It is already happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury and I would on normal occasions have been able to go through the dam wall to see one of the marvellous pieces of architecture in the dam. Because we were Members of Parliament, we were denied access, lest we might refer to it in the debate. Already Yorkshire Water is putting up fences where there have never been fences. That is what is happening now. What will happen if the Bill mistakenly goes through, particularly without the amendments?

Mr. Boswell: I question whether the amendment is technically well conceived. I am no lawyer but it seems that the whole complex of agreements is such that some will be legally binding on successors and others may be extinguished on a transfer on sale. The Minister may want to comment on which are which.
Whether or not that is the case, I think it would be agreed on both sides of the House that there is concern that the arrangements that have been available on water authority land should, where possible, continue into the successor privatised undertaking. There will be a variety. Some will be basically related to conservation; others will be related to recreation and access, which is by no means always the same, or an easily compatible user. Some will reflect management agreements which are designed to embrace the whole range of interests and reach a compromise between them. I stress that my hon. Friends and I are at least equally interested in maintaining that structure for the benefit of the public.
Where we might differ from the Opposition is in relation to our interpretation of the code of practice set out under the Bill. I remind the House that the code, which seems to have been widely praised, although in certain cases there is still scepticism as to its effect, provides the reference book for the operation of the general duties

which are set out on the face of the Bill and which we feel are most important and sufficient for the purpose with which we are concerned.
I respect the Minister's assurances in Committee and the way in which he responded to our debates there. For that reason I am hopeful of a satisfactory outcome to this exchange tonight. I mentioned in Committee the possibility of building into the code some kind of anti-frustration clause whereby it would be impossible to use the occasion of a sale to frustrate the code. Will the Minister consider those points and respond accordingly?

Mr. Morley: The amendment is a reasonable and considered amendment which we have discussed in Committee. I hope that some conservation Members, who have expressed their concern and their reservations about the Bill as it stands, will be tempted to support the amendment. As the Bill stands, it does not have the sort of safeguards that, for example, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) quite rightly wants to see for his own area in the Lake district.
The content of the code of conduct is extremely good. What is contained within the code is fine, but the problem is the very first page, which says:
The Code is designed to assist relevant bodies in performing their duties. But it cannot set out in full detail what those duties entail. Relevant bodies must themselves consider what full regard for these duties involves in the circumstances of each particular case.
Failure to apply any guideline in the Code will not of itself constitute a contravention of the environmental and recreational duties in the [Water Act 1989], nor will it give any rise to any criminal or civil liability.
In effect, the code is worthless in terms of making people enforce it.
The water companies can get around the code by simply setting up a subsidiary company that they would argue is not part of the operational function of the water plc. Then the code, even with its weaknesses, will not apply. Already the Yorkshire water authority has set up such subsidiary companies so that they will not come under the guidelines on conservation and access as laid down by the code.
There is nothing new about covenants. I expect that many hon. Members have bought houses that have covenants attached to them—such as restrictions as to running a business—which are passed on from sale to sale. There is nothing technically impossible about involving the covenants, and how they are used and the situations in which they might be relevant are discretionary. Where they may be relevant is in guarding against damage to conservation areas and in guaranteeing access. That includes such matters as agricultural and forestry changes, which, incidentally, are not covered by planning.
In previous debates we have heard that planning protection will safeguard some uses of disposed land. We already know that the planning safeguards are not adequate to protect such land—for example, of scenic beauty—from certain kinds of development. They certainly would not protect it from forestry, which does not come under planning, or from farming methods. If there is an area of land next to an embankment, where one is concerned about wild flowers, or maintaining the water level in water meadows for those flowers or for the breeding species of birds, the water level and how it is managed is crucial. There are at present many voluntary management agreements all around the country operated in particular by local naturalist trusts that are affiliated to the Royal Society for Nature Conservation. They. of


course, have outstanding areas of national importance that include the Lake district and the national parks, but they also have regionally important sites, such as Meldon reservoir, Tamar lakes, the West Pennines, Draycott water and Rutland water.
Rutland water demonstrates the conflicts that are going on. Anglian Water has already threatened court proceedings against the Nature Conservancy Council over the extension of fishing rights and the way in which fishing rights are used. Anglian Water has been trying to maximise its revenue, having been short of revenue over the years—as a result of the cash limits imposed on it—by seeing what can be achieved commercially. That has led to conflict with the Nature Conservancy Council and the local naturalist trusts.
That state of affairs is inevitable if we move towards the greater commercialisation of land, and the Secretary of State has expressed delight at the way in which the Bill will result in the privatising of thousands of acres of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. About 34 per cent. of the land holdings of water boards are in national parks. The Secretary of State's view on that comes as no surprise because he put forward the idea of privatising nature reserves. I do not know what he thought would be done to exploit privatised nature reserves commercially. Perhaps he had in mind hire-a-hedgehog or rent-a-rabbit schemes.
11.45 pm
I hope that hon. Members who have not expressed concern over these matters will not allow themselves to be fobbed off by Ministers saying that they will give these issues consideration. That is what I tell my children when they want me to put my legs on the coffee table and throw a blanket over them to make a tent. I tell them I will think about it: I fob them off. The Minister must not use those tactics to get out of his responsibilities.
People are concerned to safeguard access, management agreements and nature reserves, so we need this type of covenanting arrangement. Of the nature reserves which now exist on water board land, some are SSSIs with some protection, others are leased from the water companies and have some protection until the leases run out, most are on one or two-year leases which are renewable and many are simply management agreements. The latter work on the basis of an understanding between the local naturalist trusts or conservation bodies which manage an area and conserve it, run it, plant it, maintain water levels, clear out the weeds and generally act in ways that are beneficial to the area.
Covenants would safeguard those arrangements. By such means, if those areas of land were sold, even by a third party, the nature conservation groups could have first option on buying that land. We are not being unreasonable in asking the Secretary of State to include such covenants in the Bill. By giving nature conservation groups that right, the land would be protected for ever.
Many rights of access are permissive. In the Peak district, for example, where 15 per cent. of the land is owned by water authorities, there are more than 40 miles of permissive paths. They have no legal standing and the public are allowed to use them only by permission of the

local water company. The Lake Vyrnwy catchment area, which is owned by Severn-Trent, has 50 miles of footpaths, only one third of which are public rights of way.
Time does not permit me to go into this matter in greater detail. I hope the Minister will accept that the case for covenants is overwhelming. That principle could be accepted by the Government without even denting the philosophy—which I totally reject—behind the Bill. Every Conservative Member can vote on this issue, aside from that philosophy, to ensure that areas of nature reserves are protected, that permissive paths are guaranteed and that some safeguards exist for the millions of people who use these areas for their leisure and to protect the environment for future generations.

Mr. Howard: I will begin by setting at ease immediately the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). I do not propose to say that I shall take this amendment away and think about it or consider it, and perhaps I should explain why.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) justified her desire to debate this amendment this evening by reference to the absence of assurances during the Standing Committee. We did not debate this amendment in Committee and when I explain its terms it will be apparent to the House why.
The amendment before the House would require that no scheme for the division of water authority assets between the NRA and the appointed companies should have the effect of terminating or otherwise amending any management agreement or restrictive covenant relating to the land transferred. The fact is that schemes of transfer under schedule 2 of the Bill, to which the amendment is specifically directed, are exactly what the Bill says they are. They are simply schemes for the apportionment as between successor bodies of assets, rights and liabilities. Of itself a scheme does not and cannot vary those rights and liabilities. Rights transferred cannot be strengthened; nor can they be weakened. Any legal obligation binding on the water authority now will bind the relevant successor body. No such scheme can possibly have the effects which the amendment seeks to prevent. To say, therefore, that the amendment is wholly unnecessary is to put the matter very politely indeed.
By way of reassurance, let me deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who asked for an explanation of the kind of arrangements that would be unaffected not only by the schemes to which this amendment would relate but by privatisation overall.
First, I hope I need hardly say that all the protections afforded by national park, areas of outstanding natural beauty or other designations will fully continue. Beyond that, any management agreements made between the water authorities and the national park authorities will continue unaffected by the transfer schemes. They will be inherited by any successor in title in the future. The same is, of course, true of SSSI designations and of arrangements under them, which can only be terminated by the Nature Conservancy Council in its specific legislation. In the same way, any contractual arrangements between water authorities and, for instance, county naturalists trusts or other conservation bodies will pass with the land affected to the relevant successor body.
I recognise, of course, that there are many arrangements, such as those for the management of local


nature reserves on water authority land, which may be on a temporary or short-term basis. But the circumstances in which they can be terminated or reviewed will be no different under the successor bodies from what they are under the water authorities today. The NRA and the appointed companies will be under the same strong environmental duty of furthering conservation and providing for access and recreation as are the water authorities now. What is now done in pursuit of those duties will remain valid under the Bill. The concerns underlying this amendment are, therefore, wholly misplaced.
I take the opportunity to make clear beyond any doubt the Government's commitment to ensuring the continued protection and conservation of the land transferred to the successor bodies and public enjoyment of it. In environmental terms, much of the most important part of that estate is within the national parks. I know that in the past the water authorities and the national park authorities have worked closely together on projects for protection of landscape, conservation of wildlife and promotion of public amenity. The Government are committed to ensuring that such co-operation continues.
Accordingly, in Committee. as my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) has reminded us, we welcomed the amendment put forward by her and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset. North (Mr. Baker). in association with the council for the national parks, to impose special notification and consultation procedures in respect of significant changes in use or management of water industry land in the national parks. We shall in due course be introducing an amendment to the Bill to give full effect to that proposal.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: A large part of the most used national park in Britain is in my constituency and 15 per cent. of the land is owned by water authorities, so it is crucial for my constituents to clear up what the Minister has just said. If I heard correctly, he said that legal agreements, contractual arrangements and so on would be fully protected. Since there is so much misunderstanding on this, can he make it absolutely clear that voluntary agreements, the permissive walks in the Peak district national park and so on will all be protected under the Bill? Then I shall rest easy.

Mr. Howard: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about these matters. He arranged for a delegation from the Ramblers Association to come to see me recently, and this was one of the points that we discussed. Tomorrow, the House will have before it two amendments which closely respond to the concerns expressed by the Ramblers Association and make it clear that the duties in the Bill will extend to the sort of arrangements to which my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) has just referred.
We are still considering the precise terms of the amendments to which I referred earlier in response to amendments put forward in Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Torridge and Devon, West and for Dorset, North. It is possible that, in some respects, we may go beyond that proposed by my hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to make a full statement on that before long.
I understand the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling)

and hope that he will appreciate that the point to which he referred in his letter to me—I am sorry that I have been unable to give a full response before now—raises important and complex legal issues, which are under careful consideration. I understand the importance for him and his constituents of an early reply on those matters. and I shall do my utmost to achieve that.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) asked for a specific assurance about whether the plcs—the successor bodies to the water authorities—would be able, if they wished, to transfer land, for example, in national parks, to other public bodies or local conservation bodies. I am happy to say unequivocally that they will be able to do that. They will be private sector bodies, free to dispose of their assets in that way should they wish to do so.
The hon. Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe both referred to the code of practice. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone was unimpressed by the code's provisions and suggested that they would not have any significant effect. I should remind him that it is a statutory code, which has full force under the Bill and full account of it can be taken by the Secretary of State when deciding whether enforcement action should be taken against the relevant companies. If the Secretary of State does not take action after, for example, the code has been repeatedly breached, any citizen can take action against the Secretary of State, whose responsibilities are subject to review by the courts.
At the beginning of my observations, I said that the terms of the amendment were unnecessary because the schedule 2 schemes were simply for the transfer of existing assets, rights and liabilities, and no management agreements or covenants protecting water industry land would be affected by them. More than that, the concerns and fears underlying the amendment are misplaced and wholly misconceived. We are committed to ensuring the continuing conservation of public amenity of the water industry estate under the successor bodies. The Bill provides fully for that, and this amendment would add nothing to the means by which it is achieved. For those reasons, I ask the House to reject it.

Ms. Walley: We have listened carefully but still share the concerns which have been expressed by hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber. There is genuine concern about voluntary agreements. We are concerned not specifically with contractual agreements, but with voluntary ones. At this stage in the Bill's consideration, it is remarkable that the Minister can stand at the Dispatch Box and say that he will come back to hon. Members in due course. How long must we wait for confirmation from the Minister on this?

Mr. Howard: rose——

Ms. Walley: No, I shall not give way because there is not time.
We are concerned about conservation and about the tremendous work mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on voluntary agreements. We want to ensure that the preservation of flora and fauna can continue, and will not be jeopardised, despite what Conservative Members have to say.

Mr. Hawkins: That was not a vague undertaking from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister. Amendments are down for discussion tomorrow—Nos 57, 61 and 62, I believe—which meet the requirements about voluntary and permissive agreements. My understanding is that my hon. and learned Friend gave a strong undertaking that they would be covered. I hope that that is true; if it is—as I am sure it is, or he would not have said so—I welcome it.

It being Twelve o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [6 February] and the Resolution this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair,.That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 318.

Division No. 127]
[12 midnight


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fatchett, Derek


Allen, Graham
Faulds, Andrew


Anderson, Donald
Fearn, Ronald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fisher, Mark


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Flannery, Martin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Foster, Derek


Battle, John
Foulkes, George


Beckett, Margaret
Fraser, John


Beith, A. J.
Fyfe, Maria


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galbraith, Sam


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Galloway, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bidwell, Sydney
George, Bruce


Blair, Tony
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Blunkett, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Boyes, Roland
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bradley, Keith
Gordon, Mildred


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Graham, Thomas


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Buckley, George J.
Grocott, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Callaghan, Jim
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Heffer, Eric S.


Cartwright, John
Henderson, Doug


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clay, Bob
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Coleman, Donald
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoyle, Doug


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cryer, Bob
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Ingram, Adam


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Dr John
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kennedy, Charles


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Kirkwood, Archy


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted


Dixon, Don
Leighton, Ron


Dobson, Frank
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Doran, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Litherland, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Livsey, Richard


Eadie, Alexander
Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)


Eastham, Ken
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Loyden, Eddie


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McAllion, John





McAvoy, Thomas
Robertson, George


McCartney, Ian
Rogers, Allan


Macdonald, Calum A.
Rooker, Jeff


McFall, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Rowlands, Ted


McKelvey, William
Ruddock, Joan


McLeish, Henry
Salmond, Alex


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


McTaggart, Bob
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Madden, Max
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Short, Clare


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Meale, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Michael, Alun
Stott, Roger


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Strang, Gavin


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Straw, Jack


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Turner, Dennis


Morley, Elliott
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wall, Pat


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wallace, James


Mullin, Chris
Walley, Joan


Murphy, Paul
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Nellist, Dave
Wareing, Robert N.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


O'Brien, William
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Pike, Peter L.
Wilson, Brian


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Radice, Giles
Worthington, Tony


Randall, Stuart
Wray, Jimmy


Redmond, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn



Reid, Dr John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Richardson, Jo
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Mr. Allen Adams.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowis, John


Alexander, Richard
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Allason, Rupert
Brazier, Julian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bright, Graham


Amess, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Amos, Alan
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arbuthnot, James
Browne, John (Winchester)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Buck, Sir Antony


Ashby, David
Budgen, Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Burt, Alistair


Atkins, Robert
Butcher, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Butler, Chris


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butterfill, John


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Carrington, Matthew


Bellingham, Henry
Carttiss, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Cash, William


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chapman, Sydney


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chope, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Churchill, Mr


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Body, Sir Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Colvin, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Cope, Rt Hon John






Cormaok, Patrick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irvine, Michael


Curry, David
Jack, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jackson, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Janman, Tim


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Eggar, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fallon, Michael
Knowles, Michael


Favell, Tony
Knox, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lang, Ian


Fishburn, John Dudley
Latham, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Forth, Eric
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Franks, Cecil
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Freeman, Roger
Lightbown, David


French, Douglas
Lilley, Peter


Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Gale, Roger
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gardiner, George
Lord, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McCrindle, Robert


Goodlad, Alastair
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maclean, David


Gorst, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gow, Ian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Madel, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Major, Rt Hon John


Gregory, Conal
Malins, Humfrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mans, Keith


Ground, Patrick
Maples, John


Grylls, Michael
Marlow, Tony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hague, William
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mates, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Maude, Hon Francis


Hannam, John
Mellor, David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr')
Miller, Sir Hal


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mills, Iain


Harris, David
Miscampbell, Norman


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hawkins, Christopher
Mitchell, Sir David


Hayes, Jerry
Moate, Roger


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayward, Robert
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moore, Rt Hon John


Heddle, John
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Moss, Malcolm


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hind, Kenneth
Neale, Gerrard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nelson, Anthony


Holt, Richard
Neubert, Michael


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Howard, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Norris, Steve


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dlord)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Page, Richard


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Paice, James





Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stevens, Lewis


Patnick, Irvine
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Pawsey, James
Sumberg, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Portillo, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Price, Sir David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Raffan, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Redwood, John
Thorne, Neil


Rhodes James, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Tracey, Richard


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Trippier, David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Trotter, Neville


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rost, Peter
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rowe, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walden, George


Scott, Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Watts, John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wheeler, John


Shersby, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Sims, Roger
Widdecombe, Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilshire, David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Woodcock, Mike


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanbrook, Ivor



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Stern, Michael
Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government up to the end of clause 6.

Clause 5

CUSTOMER SERVICE COMMITTEES

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 5, line 34, leave out from 'appointing' to 'shown' in line 36 and insert
'persons to be members of a customer service committee the Director shall have regard to—
(a) the desirability of the persons appointed being persons who have experience of, and have'.
No. 24, in line 40, at end insert
'and
(b) the desirability of the committee including one or more persons with experience of work among, and the special needs of, disabled persons and of persons appointed by virtue of this paragraph including disabled persons.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Clause 6

GENERAL DUTIES WITH RESPECT TO WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE SERVICES

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 6, line 4, leave out from 'exercise' to end of line 7 and insert—

`(a) in the case of the Secretary of State, the powers conferred on him by virtue of provisions contained in Chapter I of Part II of this Act or in section 37, 67, or 155 below; and
(b) in the case of the Director, the powers conferred on him by virtue of provisions mentioned in paragraph (a) above or by virtue of section 40, 42 or 70 below.'. —[Mr. Ridley.]

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

Rent Officers

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I beg to move,
That the draft Rent Officers (Additional Functions) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.
It will be for the convenience of the House also to consider the following motion:
That the draft Rent Officers (Additional Functions) (Scotland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.
The orders are an essential adjunct to the measures in the Housing Act 1988 and the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, deregulating private lettings. The measures came into force on 2 January in Scotland and on 15 January in England and Wales. For lettings beginning since the Acts came into force, landlords can charge a market rent. It is clear that in many areas market rents will be considerably higher than fair rents. [Interruption.] It is equally clear that many tenants will be unable to pay the higher rents from their own resources. The Government have, therefore——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. There is noise from sedentary Members and from hon. Members at the Bar of the House. Will hon. Members not taking part in the proceedings please withdraw?

Mr. Trippier: The Government have, therefore, given a clear undertaking that housing benefit will be available to qualifying tenants paying rents up to open market level. Let there be no doubt about our total commitment in that respect. However, a tenant who has all or most of his rent met by housing benefit does not, obviously, have the same incentive to bargain with his landlord to keep the rent to a reasonable level as would be the case if he were paying it from his own pocket. We do not believe that the Exchequer, which provides up to 97 per cent. direct subsidy on housing benefit, should be expected simply to underwrite any rent that the landlord demands. Therefore, it is essential to have an independent check on the rents being paid from the public purse to ensure that those are not significantly above market level—in other words, above the rents being paid by tenants who are not in receipt of benefit.
The task of operating such a check is to be given to rent officers and the purpose of the orders is to lay down how it will be carried out. Besides considering claimants' rents, rent officers will also look at the size of their accommodation. We do not believe that full Exchequer subsidy should generally be available where a claimant is living in unduly large accommodation. Local authorities have long had powers to limit benefit in such circumstances.

Mr. Clive Soley: On that most offensive part of the order, will the Minister tell us the size of his property, how many people live in it and how much subsidy he has from the public purse?

Mr. Trippier: Before the hon. Gentleman draws the attention of the House to that, he may care to consider the precise lettings policy of his local authority. It fits very neatly into what is proposed in the order. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I am not in receipt of housing benefit. Therefore, it would be fairer to debate


—I shall try to develop this theme—the precise housing allocation policy of his local authority. It is so akin to what we are proposing in the orders that the hon. Gentleman might regret his intervention.
Given the prospect of higher rents in the regulated sector, it is desirable to apply a control directly on subsidy. Under the terms of the orders, local authorities will, as from 1 April, refer to the rent officer most cases where a claim for housing benefit is made by a private tenant or licensee with an agreement beginning on or after the date on which deregulation took effect. The only significant exceptions to that requirement will be tenancies with a rent set by a rent assessment committee and, other than in very rare cases, lettings by registered housing associations.
The first requirement on the rent officer will be to consider whether the claimaint's rent is at or below the level of rent prevailing in the open market. If it is, the rent officer will inform the local authority accordingly. However, if the rent is above market level the rent officer will determine what a reasonable market rent will be for the property and notify the local authority of that rent. The rent officer will then assess the claimant's accommodation against the size criteria set out in the orders. If the accommodation exceeds the criteria, the rent officer will determine a market rent for a notional property which does not exceed the size criteria but which otherwise corresponds as closely as practicable to the claimant's actual accommodation.
The rent officer's determinations will in all cases relate not directly to the benefit itself but rather to Exchequer subsidy. Where the rent officer is satisfied that the claimant's rent is no higher than market level and that his accommodation is within the size criteria, the local authority will be able to pay benefit knowing that subsidy will be available on the basis of that rent. Where the rent officer decides that the claimant's rent is above market level or that the property exceeds the size criteria and thus determines a lower rent than the claimant is paying, it will be up to the local authority to decide on which basis benefit is paid.
Authorities will continue to be precluded from restricting benefit in cases where the claimant comes within one of a number of vulnerable groups, basically the old, the disabled and those with children, and it would be unreasonable to expect him or her to move. In such cases direct subsidy will be payable on the benefit awarded on rent above the level determined by the rent officer at a rate of 50 per cent. In other cases no subsidy will be payable above the market rent determined by the rent officer for the premises in which the claimant is living.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am sure that hon. Members know exactly what the order is about, but I am not one of them. Do the size criteria permit a spare bedroom for relatives or friends coming to stay?

Mr. Trippier: We accept that there are carers who may wish to live in accommodation with people within the vulnerable groups I have just catalogued.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) asked, perfectly reasonably, whether the size allocation would allow for a spare room for guests, such as in the case of a single parent with partial custody of a child, who may visit at weekends or on odd occasions. In many instances a

spare room is absolutely essential and is not a luxury. We would be reassured if the Minister would make it clear that a spare room is permissible within this order.

Mr. Trippier: Although, as a general rule, we do not believe that the taxpayer should subsidise spare accommodation, we fully accept that some housing benefit claimants may need a spare room. The housing benefit regulations are designed to protect these people. No benefit restrictions can be placed on the elderly, the sick, the disabled or people with children if the local authority is satisfied that cheaper, suitable alternative accommoda-tion is available and the local authority considers it reasonable to expect that person to move.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Trippier: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, this is a very short debate. I will give way for the last time.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister. He used to deal with small businesses; he seems to be dealing with small houses now. Will the Minister tell me—because I am interested in motivation in my professional capacity— where this plan originated? Did he think it up? Which of his civil servants thought it up? Who suggested it to him? Where did it come from? Who is the architect of this mischievous plan?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that there is such a thing as the collective responsibility of Ministers, which stretches from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Social Security. We were, of course, unanimous in the decision we arrived at, which is why it is enshrined in this order.
The orders provide for a right of appeal against a rent officer's determination in the form of a facility for a local authority to apply for a case to be determined by an experienced rent officer from outside the registration area in which the case was originally dealt with. The redetermining officer will be required to take advice from one or more—usually two—other experienced rent officers, one of whom will be from the original area, though not the office which previously handled the case.
This is the system we propose. Its aim is to safeguard the Exchequer against paying for benefit on rents which are unreasonable. It does not represent a back-door form of rent control. It in no way dilutes our commitment that housing benefit will be available up to market rent level; on the contrary, it offers a guarantee that the housing benefit system will genuinely keep pace with the market and that claimants will have their reasonable needs met.

Mr. Clive Soley: This is one of the nastiest bits of legislation from a Government who have specialised in nasty legislation. That is why we are debating it late at night, because the Government are embarrassed about it and would be even more embarrassed if it were reported in the media as it should be.
Under the new rules, rent officers will decide what a reasonable market rent is for housing benefit subsidy purposes. The trap is evident straight away, in the concept of a "reasonable market rent". The Government have had difficulty with their concept of a market rent in recent years. Now they have suddenly decided there is such a


thing as a "reasonable market rent". I wonder if there is a reasonable price for a packet of tea, a house, or anything else in the market.

Mr. Tim Devlin: In the sale of goods legislation, where there is a dispute as to price, there are provisions for the determination of a reasonable price for a packet of tea or any other commodity. The concept of reasonableness is well known throughout English law.

Mr. Soley: If the hon. Member is stupid enough to believe that people decide the price of packets of tea in the way that he describes, he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Housing benefit paid above the level determined will not attract full subsidy and local authorities will be under pressure to restrict it. From 1 April, local authorities will refer new private sector claims to the rent officer who, in addition to deciding the reasonable market rent, will have to decide whether the accommodation is too large for the claimant's reasonable needs. That is a step back to the 19th century and will frustrate progress towards reducing overcrowding.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman uses a lot of amazing expletives and makes—as he often does—a dramatic presentation, but he tends to forget that the local authority allocation for Hammersmith, to which he has presumably never objected, is one bedroom for a couple, one bedroom for two children of the same sex, one bedroom for two children under six and one bedroom each for children of six and over of opposite sexes. How different is that provision from that of the orders?

Mr. Soley: It is very different, because those figures are the minimum that is aimed for. Under successive Governments—not just Labour Governments—local authorities have risen above them and I am pleased that they have done so.
I am delighted that the Minister intervened when he did. He described my words as colourful, but they are not my words. They are the words of the London Boroughs Association—a Tory-controlled organisation which is supported in its view by another, the Association of District Councils. Both organisations regard this legislation as wicked. They see it as a return to Victorian times—the word "Dickensian" was rightly used. This is an offensive piece of legislation and the Minister knows it.
The orders are unbelievably cruel. They must be considered in relation to the Department of Social Security regulations on housing benefit, which provide that housing benefit subsidy is payable to local authorities only up to the rent level that the rent officer says is reasonable. There are some exceptions to that rule, and the Minister touched on them. There is, for example, the 50 per cent. of housing benefit paid above the rent officer's assessment for claimants over 60, for those incapable of work or for those with dependent children. When a person dies, exemption is granted for a period of 12 months.
Let us imagine two elderly people who have separate bedrooms, perhaps because the man suffers from emphysema—a not uncommon condition. Many people of that age need separate bedrooms for a variety of reasons. If one of the two dies, after a period of just 12 months the surviving partner has the choice of looking around for somewhere smaller or paying extra rent. The only way out

of the trap is if the local authority pays the difference, but under the regime that the Government have imposed on local authorities no one believes that they will be able to do that. The Minister cannot pass the buck by talking about collective responsibility. No one with any respect would have introduced an order like this. He is telling elderly people with more than one bedroom that if one of them dies the other will have to get out or pay extra rent.
I will explain the extent of the evil. A son or daughter may be looking after an elderly parent. If the parent dies, the carer has 12 months' grace before having to move to a smaller place or pay additional rent. But if the elderly parent, instead of dying, is admitted to full-time residential care, there is no period of grace—the carer must leave immediately or pay the additional rent. It is significant that a Minister can introduce such an idea and not feel utterly ashamed of himself.
Elderly couples will have to share rooms. Grandparents cannot have a visiting room. My hon. Friends were right to point out earlier that people will not be allowed a spare room unless they pay extra rent. Two children of the same sex under 18 years of age will have to share a room, so a 17-year-old studying for examinations will have to share with a three-year-old. The Government apparently see nothing wrong with that, although they are pushing it through late at night to avoid embarrassment in the media. The size of the room is not even specified—it may be a box room, or one that will take just two bunk beds, with a 17-year-old in the top bed and a three-year-old in the bottom bed. What sort of society or Government does that?

Mr. Corbyn: A Tory Government.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: A capitalist society.

Mr. Soley: A rent officer may say that instead of the rent of £80 per week set by the landlord the reasonable market rent is £60. In those circumstances, unless councils make up the difference—nobody pretends that they will be able to do so, for the reasons that I have given—the only option for the tenant will be to pay up or move out. That is why the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils and every local authority and housing body says that this measure will lead to misery and increasing homelessness.
People will become homeless in these situations because, of course, the private rented sector is primarily involved. If an elderly couple have to get out of this sort of situation, they will go down to the local authority, which has to house them at the ratepayers' expense. That is why I say that it is a wicked measure which does anything of this nature.
The measure will also add to harassment. When a landlord wants someone out, he can put up the rent each year by more than the tenants will receive in benefit so that they have to pay the extra or get out. That is why the order is so nasty.
The test of unnecessarily large accommodation will be set as the maximum number of rooms for a particular family size. It is worth looking at the way in which it is set out in the order. It is no use the Minister trying to dodge the issue by referring to local authorities, because he knows that they set minimum standards which they then exceed. Schedule 3 says:


One bedroom shall be allowed for each of the following categories of occupiers …

(a) a married couple or an unmarried couple …
(b) an adult,
(c) two children of the same sex,
(d) two children who are less than 20 years old,
(e) a child …

The number of rooms … suitable for living in
are allowed in the following way:
if there are less than four occupiers, one".
There will be one additional room to that bedroom. And
if there are more than three and less than seven occupiers, two".
In any other cases, three rooms are allowed. That really is sick.
The order is all about preventing excessive demands on the benefit system by claimants whose choice of accommodation is unreasonable, in the Government's view, or where the house or flat is in an unnecessarily expensive area. In other words, if tenants pick a house or flat in an upmarket area, they can expect to pay the rent or get out. That will create ghettoes.
I asked the Minister in an intervention how many rooms he had, and how many family members shared those rooms. I am sure that he has a spare room for visitors. What is more, if he bought his house and got mortgage income tax relief, he has had a big fat subsidy from the public purse. The Minister says that he does not believe that taxpayers should subsidise spare bedrooms, but they are subsidising his. They are subsidising the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Prime Minister, and every Conservative Member—and probably Labour Members too. We do that for those who own and buy property, but when it comes down to those who rent in the private market we suddenly say, "No visitors for you —and you are not allowed to sleep in separate rooms or have separate rooms for your children unless you pay the price and fork out the extra money yourself." Where is all the talk about choice from the Tory party now?

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend did not mention the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who is to reply to the debate. Will my hon. Friend be fair to the Minister and admit that the taxpayer is subsidising only one of his houses?

Mr. Soley: Let us be thankful for small mercies.
In another place, Lord Caithness said on the Housing Bill:
I put it to the Committee in this way. Where one has a international market such as that which exists in central London, is it right that the state should, for instance, fully subsidise the housing benefit of someone living in a penthouse flat in Mayfair? That is the kind of criteria that we are looking for."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 October 1988; Vol. 500, c. 742.]
That may or may not be right, but if it is right for those whose rent is being subsidised, it is also right for those who are buying and being subsidised for buying. We either subsidise housing costs, or we do not. We should not decide that those who rent are second-class citizens who do not deserve the support of the state.
I have not touched much on housing associations, but they are relevant in certain circumstances. The Minister should give some thought to the clarification that the housing associations require on some of these issues. They are worried about suitable alternative accommodation being available.

Mr. Trippier: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman carefully. Is he saying that it is Labour party policy to scrap mortgage interest relief—[Interruption.] It is not a stupid point. Anyone listening to the debate would draw that inference from what the hon. Gentleman has said so far.

Mr. Soley: The only person who would draw that inference would be one who was educationally subnormal——

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: That is an insult to the educationally subnormal.

Mr. Soley: No, it is not an insult. Plenty of people who are educationally subnormal are quite nice people. I will introduce the hon. Gentleman to some one day—indeed, he may not have to go all that far to meet them.
The Minister is trying to wriggle out of the problem. He knows that what we are talking about, and what I have been talking about for a long time, is a subsidy system which is fair within and between the rented and purchase sectors. We must move towards that in such a way as not to throw either rent payers—[Interruption.] The Minister should listen for a moment and stop throwing his head back. He must understand that whether people rent or buy they should not be thrown into economic distress by the absurd actions of a Government who have shoved up interest rates to such an extent that the average person paying the average mortgage in England or Wales was paying £81 per month more in January 1989 than in January 1988——

Mr. Trippier: rose——

Mr. Soley: Is the Minister about to tell me that he regards that as a good policy for people who are buying?

Mr. Trippier: I am about to tell the hon. Gentleman that he should calm down and stop losing his temper because he is devaluing the currency of what he is trying to communicate to the House. We are anxious to hear from the hon. Gentleman precisely what his and his party's policy would be—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should put forward a constructive alternative. What is it?

Mr. Soley: I have told the Minister on a number of occasions, and I will tell him again now. It is reform of housing finance so as to make it fairer within and between the rented and purchase sector introduced in such a way as not to throw either rent payers or mortgage payers into economic distress. That is not a problem. There are several ways in which we could do that.
The Minister knows that he is bringing forward this order because his own Secretary of State admitted that the Government were in trouble with housing finance. That is because the market in the south is in such a state that if one allowed housing benefit to rise to meet market rents the cost would approximate to that of mortgate interest tax relief. That is why the Government's housing policy is in such a mess.
We know that selling and buying houses is far more profitable than renting them. That is why the private rented sector is declining and will continue to decline. If the Minister still does not understand that, I ask him to understand it now, because it is the whole point of the order.
No one can possibly justify what is being done in this order. It is literally cruel. When Conservative-controlled


associations say that it is Dickensian—they all say that what is being done is cruel and is causing homelessness, anxiety and stress—how can the Minister go ahead and do it without any sense of compassion whatever?

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I wish the Minister would defend what is proposed, but he would be defending the indefensible. It is ridiculous that at half past midnight we are discussing a matter that affects so many people, many of them among the most vulnerable in the low-income groups. It is ridiculous that we should be dealing with this order at this late—or early—hour, two days before the beginning of the Easter recess.
The draft Rent Officers (Additional Functions) (Scotland) Order stems from the Housing Act 1988, and it certainly confirms that I was right in voting against that legislation. This instrument gives rent officers power in terms of size of dwelling, rent level and services provided, but it also raises some important and worrying considerations to which I hope the Minister will address himself. Better still, the Scottish housing Minister should deal with those matters before this debate ends.
The draft order confirms the new role of the rent officer in determining, for housing benefit purposes, "reasonable" rents in respect of premises let under assured tenancies. I note, and wish to draw to the Minister's attention, the view of the Scottish Council for the Single Homeless that the proposals concerning size criteria and occupation levels are simply contrary to declared Government policy. As recently as 3 March the Scottish housing Minister was promoting a more flexible use of housing stock and commending housing providers who were managing stock imaginatively. But the Department of Social Security regulations appear to undermine that policy completely, at least for people on benefit—often those in the greatest housing need.
I remind the Minister that approximately 80 per cent. of Scotland's housing stock is three-apartment or larger, and that about 50 per cent. of the people on waiting lists are single persons. Many housing agencies where there is a surplus of large dwellings offer three-apartment, or even four-apartment, houses to single people. The problem is that DSS regulations would make this impossible in the case of people dependent on housing benefit. In this connection the Minister should address himself to several specific problems.
It is clear that the purpose of this order is to introduce constraints into the existing rent calculation criteria. Will the Minister make their meaning clear? Will he explain how, for example, the rent officer will decide what is a "reasonable" rent? Can he deny the rumours that, where a single person occupies a three-apartment house, the rent officers will have power to identify a reasonable rent for that house and then simply allow only two thirds of that amount to be paid in housing benefit as one room is unoccupied?
If a couple and their teenage son occupy a three-apartment house, and if the son leaves home, will the rent officer refuse the remaining couple full housing benefit? These matters are very important to people on very low incomes whose lives depend on such decisions. What will happen in the case of someone who, it is decided,

is intentionally homeless? If a person were to accept a tenancy, and if the rent officer were subsequently to decide that the property was too big, or that the rent was unreasonably high, could the tenant be deemed to be intentionally homeless were he to be evicted owing to contractual arrears arising because housing benefit simply did not meet the full rent—a situation that the tenant might have been totally unable to anticipate? People are quite entitled to know the specific details of the Minister's response.
Where people sharing a flat have joint and several liability for the rent, what will happen if one of them leaves the flat? Will the remaining people be entitled to housing benefit for the increased share of the rent, or will they have to meet the cost from their own pockets?
These points have been raised by the Scottish Council for the Single Homeless, and they should be on record and should be answered by the Minister. The answers may be crucial to the survival of many projects aimed at housing young single people. If tenants have to meet the cost themselves, the further development of such projects may be hampered. My local authority is anxious to do something to meet the major problem of housing the homeless, specifically the young single homeless. The order will not help; indeed, it will hinder progress. It is not clear what criteria will be used by rent officers to assess housing benefit levels for residents in old-fashioned hostels. Surely it must be recognised that residents require more than a cubicle in which to live. Allowances must be made for the cost of proper staffing and service charges. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, the criteria as stated would mean that a 17-year-old student living at home might have to share with a younger sibling. Is that what the Government expect? In Glasgow it is the norm for students to live at home while at university or college.
The Government are setting housing norms which will take housing provision and standards back in time instead of making progress by raising standards and conditions. If the Government implement the order, they will have a great deal to answer for. [Interruption.] An independent Scotland would probably have done better than the Government are doing.
Why is there not a system of outside independent appeal? Under the order appeals will be in-house. Why is there not provision for an independent system of arbitration?
I have raised some specific questions, which are justified. I hope that they will be answered by the Minister because the order will affect many people on low incomes. Families will be affected. I would like to see the Government raising standards, but the order confirms my suspicions and my opposition to the Housing Act 1988. If this is the best the Government can do, it is not good enough. I hope that the House will oppose the orders for many of the reasons so adequately stated by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. I will be happy to join him in outright opposition to these inadequate orders.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I support the measures put forward by my hon. Friend. I did not intend to speak. [Interruption.] I listened carefully, and in silence as usual, to the arguments from Opposition Members. It


is a sign of their bankruptcy that they start their normal barracking when somebody gets up to defend a reasonable measure.
As I was saying, I did not intend to speak. I wanted to listen carefully to the points being made. As I listened to all the points that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) was making and the fire with which he spoke, it became clear that there was much less in what he was saying than the passion he was using to put it forward.
Anybody looking at the housing scene must recognise that there has to be a limit to the amount of subsidy on housing benefit, both in terms of cost because of the area —[Interruption.] It is a Library briefing note; even Opposition Members are allowed to read those. There has to be a limit to the amount of money that can be used from the public purse for housing benefit to subsidise the cost of accommodation.
The speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith on behalf of the Labour party was precisely the style of speech, with the same approach to rented housing, that has dogged the party for many years.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's points. I am impressed by his gall in defending the measure. Will the hon. Gentleman pick up a copy of Hansard tomorrow and take it to his surgeries and show it to his constituents who are in rented accommodation and who are complaining about the effects of the measure? If he did, they would say to him, "How did you have the gall to stand up in the House and support such a measure?"

Mr. Hughes: What I shall tell my constituents is that last year's Housing Bill and the one going through at present will provide increased private rented accommo-dation and housing association rented accommodation, and I was part of what the Government did to improve housing conditions in the capital in the long term.
I want to refer to the gall of the Labour Front Bench. Their approach has been the same as the one that has done disservice to the people of London for so long. The hon. Member for Hammersmith was saying, "It does not matter what size your accommodation is, we will provide the housing benefit." What he was laying out as a scenario of Labour policy was, "We will provide any amount of benefit to anyone living in rented accommodation." Anyone who has canvassed in the east end of London knows that that is the same falsehood that the Labour party has been using for generations to con people in the east end of London into voting for it.
The reality is that that sort of housing policy has never been the truth. It is that sort of policy that has led to some of the worst conditions in the east end of London. It is shameful that we are hearing that that will be the Labour policy for at least the next generation. There will not in fact be a housing policy that deals realistically with the accommodation that could be made available.

Mr. William O'Brien: Can I take it from what the hon. Gentleman is saying that the policy being presented by the Tories is based on a London situation that will affect Scotland and the rest of the country? That appears to be the theme that the hon. Gentleman is developing.

Mr. Hughes: That is very rich coming from the hon. Gentleman. I have listened to most of his speeches in the debates on the current Local Government and Housing Bill, and he has based every argument on Wakefield.

Mr. O'Brien: Bradford.

Mr. Hughes: I am entitled as a London Member of Parliament, having spent years in local government in London, to base some of my arguments on London. Hon. Members will make their speeches about other parts of the country. I shall talk about London, because I have seen the disgraceful housing conditions caused by Labour's policies in London.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has been talking about east London. Does he realise that the Government's policies are reversing nearly 50 years of public housing policies for the metropolis and that the social effect on people in east London is to drive young people from the towns in which they were born because they cannot afford to live there? The Government are destroying communities that make this country and of which the hon. Gentleman should be proud. However, he is ignorant because he comes from Harrow. He does not understand.

Mr. Hughes: I do not know where the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) came from originally, but my wife's family are real east-enders and know a great deal about what is going on in the east end. We get from the hon. Members representing the Newham constituencies the sort of middle-class pretensions of latter-day "Johnny come lately" east-enders, which realy makes east-enders sick. Real east-enders recognise that such people are a bit of a joke when they consider their real living conditions.
I recognise that, certainly in the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Southwark, generations of Labour control did nothing to help the situations that have been pointed out to me by the hon. Member for Newham, South. Young people have voted with their feet and have left those boroughs—indeed, his own borough—for generations before this Government came to power. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Tower Hamlets borough council, under the control of his party, did not allow any private building in that area. When the GLC put 34 maisonettes on the market for sale, 1,600 people queued overnight to try to buy them.

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend will have heard the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) give his reasons why the private rented sector had declined so much. It has declined from 50 per cent. immediately after the war to 8 per cent. today. That has happened because of the Rent Acts, which the hon. Member for Hammersmith supports and which we are deregulating, and a massive expansion of municipalisation, which Opposition Members have always supported and to which they have no constructive alternative.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is of course absolutely right.
I regard the order as a realistic approach to what can be provided. But I understand that missing from the instrument, although it was in the 1987 consultation paper, is a definition of room sizes, and I am concerned about the sizes of rooms that can be counted as habitable rooms. It


has been suggested, for example, that a box room might qualify. A more detailed test, perhaps taking account of floor space, might be helpful.
People recognise that what the Government are introducing is fair and reasonable. The suggestions of Labour Members may sound attractive, but people know that a Labour Government never could or would implement their promises. But that does not matter much because they appreciate that the Labour party will never achieve office and hence will never have the opportunity to impose their policies.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: This is one of the most mean and vicious pieces of legislation that I have witnessed since coming to this place. The Minister represents a neighbouring constituency to mine. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about what they are proposing and will withdraw the order and allow further time for debate.
The Association of District Councils says in the document that it has submitted that it had only five days in which to consider this proposal. Considering that the Chancellor had a £14 billion surplus, the Government cannot claim that there is any urgency, financial or otherwise, to introduce a measure such as this. If the Minister considers that a problem exists, he should have further discussions with the local authorities in the coming year and then introduce a more sensible measure.
In his introductory remarks, the Minister spoke of fair rents, market rents, reasonable market rents—meaning presumably that market rents, even if they were considered to be reasonable, would be higher than fair rents—and unreasonable market rents. For a Government who believe that the solution to the housing problem lies with a free market and an increase in the private rented sector, this is an appalling piece of legislation.
Considering the changes that the Government are forcing on local government in housing, with another housing measure going through this year, I have no doubt that tonight's order represents a foot in the door prior to assessing council house rebates in a few years from now. I urge the Minister to appreciate that many people have no choice of size of property or even location of that property.
Time after time the Government talk about choice, but people's choice is determined by ability to pay and, depending on where they live, they may find it impossible to get the appropriate sized property. It is appalling that, when the Government are considering people's homes, they should talk about rooms of a certain size or rooms that are not needed.
The Minister did not like what my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, although he did not overstate the case, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that there must be fairness of treatment for people, whether they are renting or buying houses. I do not know how the Minister can justify a person buying a house bigger or more expensive than is necessary and getting the maximum subsidy, and even tax rebates in some cases, and at the same time support this order. That shows the point that the extreme Right wing of the Tory party has reached in 1989.
I ask the Minister to think again. He said it was a matter of collective responsibility. He did not want to say who was responsible. But even if it is collective responsibility, it will always be his name that is remembered as that of the member of this Government who moved this appalling motion tonight. He should think again and, before it is too late, say that he is prepared to withdraw it and talk with the local authority associations.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I just want to ask the Labour spokesman who will wind up this debate four questions. We heard from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) no intimation of what Labour party policy is in this area.
First, does the Labour party have any policy or any limit on the housing benefit which can be given to an individual or spent as a proportion of total Government expenditure?
Secondly, is there any property size limit which the Labour party would impose on housing benefit claimants?
Thirdly, would it place any limit on the areas which housing benefit claimants might move to, given the size and cost of properties?
Fourthly, if there are no limits on any of those three matters, can the Labour spokesman who sums up tell us what he says to Labour councils which allocate properties to families based on the size of the family, and ask families to move if they are occupying properties of a size they do not require?

Mr. Tony Banks: At least the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) have the gall to stand up and attempt to involve themselves in this debate. For that reason alone they will both be honourable candidates for the order of the brown nose.
To answer the hon. Member for Pembroke, the Labour Government would not be operating in a housing market as chaotic as the present market. It is as simple as that.
The hon. Member asked to what level housing benefit should go. The answer is the level it is required to go to in order to provide people with decent homes in which to live and accommodation that we would find acceptable for us to live in. That is the sort of standard that we should impose upon other people. That seems to me to be sensible and rational.
What worries me about all this is the stench of hypocrisy that pervades it.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman and I are serving on the Local Government and Housing Bill Committee, and indeed he is the Whip for the Labour party. The Labour party criticises the £8,000 limit for claiming housing benefit. What limit would the Labour party have?

Mr. Banks: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) since the question was essentially directed at him.

Mr. Soley: As usual, the question is irrelevant. As I have said on a number of occasions, what we must do—and have frequently said that we will do prior to a proper reform of housing finance—is to ensure that rents are


assessed independently of the landlords so that we do not fall into the trap in which the Government presently find themselves, with housing benefit rising through the roof.

Mr. Banks: I do not honestly believe that, other than those on the Front Bench, any Conservative Member has read and understood the order. The reluctance of Conservative Members to support the Minister is all the evidence we need to know that Conservative Members do not know what it contains. They just want to get through it, get away and disappear home. It is appalling when the House passes such measures at this time of night. There is something very contemptible about the way in which the Minister has brought this to the House. The Government are trying to slip it through the House at this time, rather like thieves in the night—knowing very well that it will be given very little, if any, press coverage.
The first time that most people will realise how this order is to affect them will be when it smacks them straight between the eyes. They will not read about it in the newspapers, or hear about it on the radio or television. The Government have also ensured that the timetable is so short that there has not been enough time to consult, advise and inform. That is deliberate and contemptible. I am surprised that the Minister has allowed himself to be used in this way.
The deregulation of the private rented sector and the introduction of the assured tenancies for new, private and housing association tenants, under the 1988 Act, has meant that rents are increasing rapidly. The Government have argued that this will not stop people on moderate incomes from finding accommodation because they will receive housing benefit. What the Prime Minister said at this afternoon's Question Time shows that she does not know about the reality—she does not have the personal experience and the factual information is not provided for her. In this afternoon's Prime Minister's Question Time she unintentionally misled the House.
We now know that benefits will escalate, and to solve that problem—which is largely of their own making—the Government have allowed local authorities to decide how much benefit to pay to the tenant. They have also changed the rent officer's role, from one of setting fair rents under the old system, to one of setting the level of subsidy that a council can receive on the benefit which it pays.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith gave an example where, if the rent of a flat, as set by the landlord, was £80 but the rent officer says that a reasonable market rent is £60, that is all that the council may receive from the DSS. The council is then in the unenviable position of having to decide between paying the full amount and asking the rate or poll tax payers for the extra £20, or paying benefit of £60 and leaving the tenant to find the extra £20, or risk eviction and homelessness. Many councils—especially those in London where rents are generally much higher than elsewhere in the country and where many local authorities are rate-capped—will pay benefits only when they can be sure of receiving subsidy.
The Government must face the implication of deregulation and make full subsidies available—which is what the Prime Minister was suggesting this afternoon. They should not expect hard-pressed councils to pick up the tab and tenants to suffer. If landlords are to be prevented from exploiting the benefit system, there must

be either rent control or the Government must dispense with hypocrisy and set a ceiling over which no benefit should be paid.

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Social Security Standing Committee discussed this matter at great length? One concern that emerged, which Ministers were unable to answer, was whether, if a local authority paid the difference between a housing benefit allocation for the rent level and the real rent level, this would be permissible expenditure. Could local councillors be threatened with surcharges for spending money in order to keep people in private rented accommodation to avoid them being thrown on the streets and becoming homeless and thus ineligible for rehousing under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 because they would be deemed intentionally homeless?

Mr. Banks: That illustrates the nature of the order.
I am reading deliberately, because I still cherish the thought that one or two Conservative Members may realise how appalling the order is and start asking questions. Perhaps I am being charitable. Even the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes)—because he was reading his brief and learning from it as he made his speech —suddenly fixed on the question of room size, and suggested to the Minister in a more reasonable tone that perhaps he should consider it. That is a fair question, and I hope that the Minister will answer it when he sums up.
In most cases, except where the council cannot legally restrict benefit which applies to vulnerable and elderly people, benefits will be paid only up to the level set by the rent officer.
Tenants, many already with little money, will undoubtedly undergo hardship.
However landlords have listened to the Government's rhetoric and because of the Housing Act have greater ability to levy higher rents and obtain the eviction of tenants.
In London about 10 per cent. of all households accepted as homeless by London boroughs—3,000 families—are home-less because they have lost a private tenancy. This has been constant since 1980, during which time the sector has declined rapidly. Therefore homelessness as a result of eviction, rent arrears etc. constitutes a growing proportion of those living in private rented accommodation. This measure will create an even larger problem for private tenants and many housing association tenants too.
The result will be that people with lower or moderate incomes, as well as the young and unemployed, will increasingly face eviction and possible homelessness.
Let us consider the concerns about unreasonably large accommodation. No Member on either side of the House would be prepared to live in the conditions that the order will impose on private tenants. If we are not prepared to endure the restrictions that we are placing on others, why should they be prepared to accept those restrictions? Why should we have the gall and hypocrisy to inflict them on them?
I hope that, even if the order is passed, when hon. Members read it again they will put pressure on their own Front Bench—perhaps even privately—to redress some of its blatant injustices. The timetabling is bad: there has been no time to consult. Local authorities have not even had time to set up the necessary software on the computers to make their calculations. We shall simply have more muddle and confusion to add to the suffering that the Government have already inflicted on those in both the private and the public rented sectors.
I ask the Minister to reconsider—even at this late hour —and to announce that he will withdraw the order from further consideration.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: In my view, this is an inevitable consequence of the Government's policy of moving from subsidising public sector housing to supposedly trying to subsidise individials. There is much sense in such a move, but it is a humane and tenable policy only if the subsidies offered to those individuals are properly and generously given.
This order will rebound against the Government in the weeks, months and years to come because it is iniquitous and unfair. Certainly it contradicts any attempt to make flexible use of the available housing stock. The point was made earlier that the configuration of available empty housing stock in Scotland suggests that, by and large, it is larger rather than smaller. That means, for example, that it is difficult if not impossible to accommodate the almost 50 per cent. of waiting lists in Scotland which consist of single people, matching need with supply.
There is a very great question mark in my mind about whether the order will save money in the longer term. Certainly it will greatly increase bureaucracy, which is worrying. Ultimately, the money saved will not be worth the implementation of that bureaucratic edifice. The order will certainly affect the standards of accommodation available to vulnerable groups of people on housing waiting lists. The order should have set minimum standards. Almost inevitably, it will lead to increased homelessness. If more people become homeless, more people will have to go into bed-and-breakfast accom-modation and that will increase the cost to the Exchequer.
We had some interesting debates on the Housing (Scotland) Bill 1988 in Committee and on the Floor of the House about the appeals system which would deal with the part of the legislation covered by the order. I have seen many appeal systems in social security and other legislation, but this is the worst by a long way. I can think of no justification for using the term "appeal system" in its accepted sense in this context. The system is totally and completely unjustifiable and should be re-examined.
I am most worried about the effect of the order on vulnerable groups. In previous legislation there were safeguards for vulnerable groups—that no deduction should be made if the household contained someone over 60, someone incapable of work, a child or a young person unless suitable cheaper accommodation was available and it was reasonable for the local authority to expect the claimant to move. No such safeguards exist in this order.
It may be of interest to the House that on 11 October a Minister in the other place said during the debate on the Housing Bill that
the interaction between the subsidy controls and the need for local authorities to consider the position of elderly and disabled claimants who might find it difficult to move to smaller or cheaper accommodation has to be very carefully considered."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 October 1988; Vol. 176, c. 750.]
It would be interesting to hear from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), when he replies to the debate, exactly how the position of those vulnerable groups has been considered under the order. The hon. Gentleman holds collective responsibility for what was said in the other place by the Earl of Caithness, so we wait to hear what safeguards have been put in place to protect vulnerable groups.
The order will affect the tenants' choice provisions and will act as a considerable disincentive. The provisions apply to assured tenancies and not to local authority tenants. If someone has a spare room and decides to opt out and enter an assured tenancy, he may be lumbered with contractual arrears due to under-occupation, so public sector tenants with spare rooms would be stone mad to consider exercising choice and moving to another landlord if they are on housing benefit.
In conclusion, the result of the new order will be to increase homelessness among those already disadvantaged by being in particularly vulnerable groups with none of the safeguards of previous legislation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Surely the hon. Gentleman's point about assured tenancies would not apply to ownership co-operatives or housing associations.

Mr. Kirkwood: I accept that. I was talking about the position of a person with a local authority tenancy who moves to an assured tenancy with a spare room. If I have got that wrong, I shall be happy to be put right.
This is one of the worst orders that I have come across in my six years in the House. It is a disgrace and the Government should consider nothing short of withdraw-ing it.

Ms. Diane Abbott: I want to make one point about the position of elderly couples, of whom there are many thousands in my constituency. Their children have grown up and moved away, so they find themselves with at least one spare room. I have read the order carefully and there is scope in it for the difference between their real rent and the reasonable rent to be subsidised up to 50 per cent. It seems to me —and I am asking for clarification on this—that the Government are asking local authorities to meet the other 50 per cent. Is it not the case that, under the order, many thousands of elderly couples, through no fault of their own, will find that they cannot cover their rent fully and they will be forced to leave flats and areas where they may have lived all their lives?
It is one thing to say that local authorities encourage such pensioners to move. To my knowledge, no local authority forces pensioners to move out of the home in which they have lived for 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the order, thousands of pensioners, especially in London, may find themselves forced to move out of the only home that they have known for 50 years to save money. I want an assurance for my pensioners in Hackney that nobody will be moved out of his home under the terms of the order.

Mr. Trippier: I want to deal quickly with three points. It is obvious to the House that I shall not be able to deal with all the questions raised, but I shall try to deal with most. First, there is a misunderstanding about the order. Comparatively few people will be paying rent above what will be assessed as the market rent. By any standards, the market rent will be relatively high and we have accepted that.
Secondly, there is a misunderstanding about the payment of 100 per cent. of subsidy to the market level. It is only if those elderly people are paying rent above the market level that the subsidy will drop to 50 per cent.
Thirdly, the local authority can subsidise the rent itself, so it does not mean that people have to make a contribution, and that goes on in many cases at present.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I shall give a concrete example from Cardiff, which was discovered by a ward councillor in the past week. An elderly pensioner widower had lived in the same two-bedroomed terraced house for 50 years on a controlled tenancy. The rent had been increased by the landlord to £160 a month and, because the house was under-occupied, the man's housing benefit had been assessed at £60 a month. How is a pensioner supposed to meet that £100 a month difference? The pensioner was in tears as he explained this, after receiving his £15 weekly allocation. He could move to a local authority flat, but he would not be any better off and there are almost no local authority flats. The two-bedroomed terrace house he rents is £100 more expensive than the housing benefit he is receiving.

Ms. Abbott: The Minister has said that when only 50 per cent. subsidy is available, the local authorities may provide the other 50 per cent. of the difference. The point I am trying to make to the Minister—and his colleagues may be able to fill him in more than I can—is that many London local authorities will be hard put to make up that difference. I am not persuaded by anything the Minister has said that there will not be many pensioners in London and other local authorities who will find themselves forced out of their homes.
I took the opportunity earlier to look up the details of the family seat of the Dukes of Hamilton. It is called Lennoxlove. It ill behoves some Front-Bench Conservatives, who have not one spare room but hundreds of spare rooms in their family houses——

Mr. Tony Banks: Spare castles.

Ms. Abbott: —to lecture the pensioners of Hackney and pensioners in working-class areas about how many rooms they are supposed to have.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I noted with interest the brief intervention of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) who sought soft landings for kids in safe play areas in a ten-minute Bill last week. I wonder what he thinks about the hard landing that many thousands of pensioners will experience as a result of the order.
Since 1979 the Government's housing record has been despicable. Little or no municipal housing is being built, less private housing is being built and those in the south-east complain about high housing costs because there are not enough houses. The lack of housing leads to increased demand and higher prices. As Conservative Members have said, the order seeks to deal with problems in the south-east, but it will also hammer thousands of people in the rest of the country, particularly in Scotland.
We are told that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), does not have the courage to come to the Dispatch Box tonight, and I am not surprised. However, I invite him to do so to tell us what will be the effect of the Scottish homes legislation which enables council tenants to have a private landlord. Will they be

telling people who take up that option that if they have a spare room in their house they will lose their housing benefit?
This is a despicable measure. It should be condemned by everybody. I am sure that Conservative Members in the Chamber tonight do not understand the terrible damage that they are doing to the poorest and least advantaged people in Britain. This is a despicable measure from a despicable Minister and we hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will come to the Dispatch Box and defend it.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The order owes nothing to the housing needs of the British people. It is not designed to do so. It is just another example of the Tory Government slaughtering the housing needs and hopes of millions of people on the altar of the market economy, with all its gobbledegook about market forces and who will set and pay rents.
I shall not say that this is a landlord's charter; it is worse than that. It is a profiteering landlord's charter. The rent officer will no longer be an independent objective person who ensures that a fair rent once fixed is adhered to and to whom one can appeal if a landlord tries to increase such a rent. People, particularly in London, will be harassed out of protected tenancies by con merchants and thrown on to the streets so that the private rented sector, the free market, can allow the level of rent to rise to its natural level—the highest that can be obtained.
The Minister knows perfectly well what the effect of the order on people in receipt of housing benefit will be. In the past, such people could obtain a tenancy from a private landlord with the assurance that their housing benefit would meet that rent and the landlord would know that he could collect such a rent. Landords will now know that if the rent that they are charging is above the level decided on by the rent officer as the market level, the housing benefit will not meet those needs so that the tenant may not be able to pay the full rent. It is very likely that the local authority will not be able to pay the difference even if it wants to, so, yet again, unemployed people and those on low incomes in receipt of housing benefit will be deterred, if not prevented, from obtaining housing on the private rented market.
When the Minister talks glibly about market rents, he knows perfectly well that the levels that his Department is now working on are way out of date. He talks of rents of £50 and £60 a week for one-bedroomed flats in the private sector in inner London. He should go to my constituency and look in some of the accommodation agencies. In their windows there are one-bedroomed flats going for £100 a week or more in the private rented sector. The effect of their deregulation has been to force up private sector rents, to have people thrown out on the streets, and there will be greater homelessness and profiteering by landlords.
The fact that the Minister claimed that the local authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who made an excellent speech, was doing the same as the Government shows his ignorance of what local authorities are doing. They try to have minimum criteria, which ought to be possible to achieve, whereby children of vastly different ages do not have to share a room, whereby parents do not have to share a room with their children, and whereby there is


some respect for people with a serious illness, such as septicaemia, so that they can have a separate room in their flats.
Under this order there will be a rabbit-hutch formula, whereby poor people in receipt of housing benefit will be forced to live in disgracefully small, sub-standard accommodation.

Mr. Pike: Is it not true to say that, when local authorities lay down their criteria, one of the things that constrains them is the increasing pressure from the Government, which makes it impossible for local authorities to meet the demand? That has to be borne in mind when one is considering any criteria that the local authority have with regard to their allocations policy.

Mr. Corbyn: Precisely. My local authority does its best to meet the housing needs of the people of the borough. It cannot do it. No London borough is capable of even fulfilling its statutory housing obligations at the present time. As the situation gets worse, the definition of intentionally homeless gets wider and wider, so that local authorities do not have to take people into bed and breakfast or hostel accommodation. Most of those people who tonight are sleeping on the streets around Waterloo station, the National Theatre and along the South Bank, who are begging at the main stations of this city, who are sleeping over the grilles of tube stations on Charing Cross road, not long ago had somewhere to live.
Those people are the victims of market forces, the victims of what this Government are doing and believe should be done to poor people, who cannot afford the landlords' rent. That is what it is about. The Minister has an arrogant smirk on his face tonight, the arrogance of a man who has thrown people on the street, who knows full well that the measures he is putting through this House tonight, in the dead of night, will cause untold hardship.
This country is very rich indeed and has enormous resources. If this House and this Government wanted to, resources could be found to provide a house for everybody in this country. There need be nobody sleeping on the streets; there need be no homelessness and no evictions because people cannot meet the kind of rents being demanded. What is required to do that is control on profiteering, and funding for local authorities to enable them to build what is required. It needs a Government determined to put in train the construction of the council houses needed for rent, rather than the pitiful level of 15,000 which have been completed this year.
It is with great anger that I ask the House tonight to vote against this disgraceful order, one of the most disgraceful orders I have seen during the time I have been in this House, and one which will cause untold misery throughout this country. It is a disgrace that it should be debated in the middle of the night, when the media are not here to report this travesty of justice.

Mr. John Maxton: My first question is whether the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), will be replying to the debate or not. He seems to be indicating that he is not. That is an absolute disgrace. It is an insult to the people of Scotland

and to Scottish Members of Parliament, and it is yet another abuse of Scottish legislation put through this House by the Government. In fact, it is the second example in 24 hours because earlier today we debated major changes in water legislation in Scotland in just an hour and a quarter. The Scottish Office Minister is too much of a coward to come to the Dispatch Box——

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well when I spoke to him yesterday that it was possible to hold a separate debate, in which case I would have moved the motion and replied to the debate. However, the orders have been taken together.

Mr. Maxton: Had I known that the Scottish Office Minister would not be replying to the debate, we would have had a three-hour debate and kept Tory Members here until 3 am.

Mr. Foulkes: Four Scottish Members have participated in the debate—my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh). That makes it imperative that the Minister should reply. He has been here throughout the debate, so it is perfectly possible for him to do so. All that the English Minister needs to do is to pass over his brief.

Mr. Maxton: It is disgraceful that the Scottish Office Minister will not reply. However, it is not untypical of Scottish Office Ministers or of the Government—particularly when they are pushing through a measure that is so obviously based on what happens in London and has nothing to do with Scotland. If the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), think that he can reply to the points raised by Scottish Members, he is mistaken. He knows nothing about Scottish housing legislation or about how this legislation affects Scotland. The whole affair is beyond belief.
This is one of the most hypocritical pieces of legislation that I have seen for a long time. I sat through the legislation that brought in the poll tax for Scotland. I remember that the Government based almost their entire case for that on the little old lady who had been widowed and lived on her own, paying the same rates as the family next door. No one in the Government suggested then that she might be better off moving into less luxurious accommodation. The Government gave her a massive subsidy—up to £1,500 in my constituency—by introduc-ing the poll tax. Well-heeled widows living alone get massive subsidies, but poor widows on housing benefit have their benefit slashed and have to look for somewhere else to live—or find enormous sums of money to avoid doing so.
The Minister can keep looking at his watch for as long as he likes. I shall talk right through and he will not get the opportunity to reply to the debate.

Mr. Trippier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you give us guidance so that we can clear up whether a Scottish Minister should reply to the debate? Am I not correct in saying that it is within the purview of any hon. Member to object to two orders being taken together, and that if even one Opposition Member had objected, the orders would have been debated separately? I challenge the


hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) because I believe that he knew that if the orders were taken together the Scottish Office Minister would not reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman says. The House decided at the beginning of the debate that the two orders would be taken together.
Perhaps I may tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that it is customary, though not obligatory, to allow the Minister who introduced an order to reply to it.

Mr. Maxton: I could not care less what the customs are in this matter. I have points to make about Scotland.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to say that he could not care less what you have said? After you explained what the conventions of the House are, I distinctly heard the hon. Gentleman say that he could not care less what you said. That is a disgraceful way in which to treat you

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for defending the Chair, but I did not take it in that way.

Mr. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it customary for a Minister seeking to open and reply to a debate on an order to ask for the permission of the House in any event?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not so in the case of an order of this kind, when a Minister who opens is entitled to reply without seeking the leave of the House. Mr. Maxton.

Mr. Maxton: rose——

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not also a custom of the House, although not perhaps in Standing Orders, that when an order or a Bill is before the House that applies both to England and Scotland, and where hon. Members representing both countries have fully participated, and a Minister from the second nation is present, it is courteous for the Minister for the other nation to wind up the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for Ministers rather than the Chair.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not an abuse of democracy that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) should first challenge my hon. Friend the Minister to answer various questions, and say that he had no intention of telling the House the Labour party's policy, and now deny the Minister the opportunity of answering the questions raised by both Opposition and Conservative Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I repeat that it is customary for a Minister who has introduced an order to be allowed to reply.

Mr. Maxton: It is customary, but there are no rules that say it has to be the case. I shall answer one of the questions posed by both the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).
We were asked whether we were prepared to allow any increase in housing benefit, whatever the cost. I will tell

.him. On 1 April this year, private landlords in Scotland who, up to now, have been asking for a combined rent and rates——

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that the debate is due to end at 1.42 am? The consequence of the Labour Front-Bench filibuster is that my hon. Friend the Minister will not have a chance to reply to the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I confirm that the debate must end at 1.42 am.

Mr. Maxton: The point I was making, when the hon. Gentleman interrupted, was that on 1 April there will be landlords in Scotland——

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 96.

Division No. 128]
[1.42 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Gregory, Conal


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Amess, David
Hague, William


Amos, Alan
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Arbuthnot, James
Hanley, Jeremy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Harris, David


Ashby, David
Hayes, Jerry


Bellingham, Henry
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Heddle, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hind, Kenneth


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Howard, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bottomley, Peter
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bowis, John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bright, Graham
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Irvine, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Jack, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Janman, Tim


Burt, Alistair
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knapman, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cash, William
Knowles, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Lang, Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lawrence, Ivan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lightbown, David


Couchman, James
Lilley, Peter


Cran, James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lord, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Day, Stephen
Maclean, David


Devlin, Tim
McLoughlin, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mans, Keith


Dover, Den
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dunn, Bob
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Durant, Tony
Maude, Hon Francis


Fallon, Michael
Miller, Sir Hal


Favell, Tony
Mills, Iain


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Mitchell, Sir David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Forth, Eric
Moss, Malcolm


Franks, Cecil
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Freeman, Roger
Neubert, Michael


French, Douglas
Nicholls, Patrick


Gale, Roger
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Norris, Steve


Gill, Christopher
Oppenheim, Phillip


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Paice, James


Green way, John (Ryedale)
Porter, David (Waveney)






Raffan, Keith
Stevens, Lewis


Redwood, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Riddick, Graham
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rowe, Andrew
Thurnham, Peter


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trippier, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, David (Dovor)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Widdecombe, Ann


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Yeo, Tim


Skeet, Sir Trevor



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and


Stern, Michael
Mr. Sydney Chapman.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
McAllion, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McAvoy, Thomas


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McCartney, Ian


Bradley, Keith
Macdonald, Calum A.


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
McFall, John


Buckley, George J.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
McKelvey, William


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McLeish, Henry


Clay, Bob
McWilliam, John


Clelland, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Marek, Dr John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cryer, Bob
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cummings, John
Maxton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Meale, Alan


Cunningham, Dr John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Darling, Alistair
Morgan, Rhodri


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Morley, Elliott


Dewar, Donald
Mullin, Chris


Dixon, Don
Murphy, Paul


Doran, Frank
Nellist, Dave


Dunnachie, Jimmy
O'Brien, William


Eadie, Alexander
Patchett, Terry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Pike, Peter L.


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fisher, Mark
Prescott, John


Foster, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Foulkes, George
Redmond, Martin


Fyfe, Maria
Reid, Dr John


Galbraith, Sam
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Ruddock, Joan


Graham, Thomas
Salmond, Alex


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hinchliffe, David
Soley, Clive


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Spearing, Nigel


Hood, Jimmy
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wall, Pat


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wallace, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Walley, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Ingram, Adam
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Kennedy, Charles
Wilson, Brian


Kirkwood, Archy
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lamond, James
Wray, Jimmy


Leighton, Ron



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)
Mr. Allen Adams and


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mr. Frank Cook.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Rent Officers (Additional Functions) order 1989, which was laid before this House on 23 rd February, be approved.

Motion made, and Question Put,
That the draft Rent Officers (Additional Functions) (Scotland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 95

Division No. 129]
[1.53 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Amess, David
Irvine, Michael


Amos, Alan
Jack, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Janman, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Ashby, David
Knapman, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knowles, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Lang, Ian


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Lawrence, Ivan


Boswell, Tim
Lightbown, David


Bottomley, Peter
Lilley, Peter


Bowis, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bright, Graham
Lord, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Maclean, David


Buck, Sir Antony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Burt, Alistair
Mans, Keith


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Carrington, Matthew
Maude, Hon Francis


Cash, William
Miller, Sir Hal


Chope, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mitchell, Sir David


Cope, Rt Hon John
Morrison, Sir Charles


Couchman, James
Moss, Malcolm


Cran, James
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Neubert, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Nicholls, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Devlin, Tim
Norris, Steve


Dorrell, Stephen
Oppenheim, Phillip


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Paice, James


Dover, Den
Porter, David (Waveney)


Dunn, Bob
Raffan, Keith


Durant, Tony
Redwood, John


Fallon, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Favell, Tony
Roe, Mrs Marion


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Rowe, Andrew


Fishburn, John Dudley
Sayeed, Jonathan


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Forth, Eric
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Franks, Cecil
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Freeman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


French, Douglas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Gale, Roger
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stern, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Stevens, Lewis


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Gregory, Conal
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Thurnham, Peter


Hague, William
Trippier, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hanley, Jeremy
Waller, Gary


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Watts, John


Harris, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Hayes, Jerry
Wilshire, David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Yeo, Tim


Hind, Kenneth



Howard, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradley, Keith
Cryer, Bob


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Cummings, John


Buckley, George J.
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Cunningham, Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Darling, Alistair


Clay, Bob
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)






Dewar, Donald
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dixon, Don
Marek, Dr John


Doran, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Maxton, John


Eadie, Alexander
Meale, Alan


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fisher, Mark
Morley, Elliott


Foster, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Foulkes, George
Murphy, Paul


Fyfe, Maria
Nellist, Dave


Galbraith, Sam
O'Brien, William


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Patchett, Terry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pike, Peter L.


Graham, Thomas
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Prescott, John


Haynes, Frank
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hinchliffe, David
Redmond, Martin


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Reid, Dr John


Hood, Jimmy
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Salmond, Alex


Illsley, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Ingram, Adam
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kennedy, Charles
Soley, Clive


Kirkwood, Archy
Spearing, Nigel


Lamond, James
Strang, Gavin


Leighton, Ron
Wall, Pat


Lewis, Terry
Wallace, James


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Walley, Joan


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McAllion, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McAvoy, Thomas
Wilson, Brian


McCartney, Ian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wray, Jimmy


McFall, John



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Tellers for the Noes:


McKelvey, William
Mr. Allen Adams and


McLeish, Henry
Mr. Frank Cook.


McWilliam, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Community Hospitals

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Mr. Roger Knapman: My interest in the subject of community hospitals has been stimulated by the proposals of the Gloucester health authority, which seeks to close the Berkeley and Tetbury hospitals in my constituency. Those are hospitals that are greatly valued by the communities which they serve. The communities have responded generously, both to the modernisation and the upkeep of those hospitals, largely through the sterling efforts of the leagues of friends. Moreover, the communities were originally given these hospitals by local benefactors in the last century, although it would seem that, with a piece of Socialist spite, the property was confiscated from them in 1948.
The level of public concern for these hospitals is shown by the fact that at recent public meetings protesting against their closure about 1,000 people attended the Tetbury and over 600 turned up at Berkeley. The purpose of this debate is not to criticise the Gloucester health authority, which is one of the best in the country, but rather to challenge the basis on which the assessments of the working party which was set up by that health authority were made.
I appreciate that if I dwell solely on constituency matters I shall receive virtually the standard response from the Minister, which is that small community hospitals make an important contribution to the NHS but that it is for individual health authorities to determine the appropriate pattern of district services. In doing so, they will balance the benefits of community alongside those of larger district hospitals in the light of changing circumstances so as to secure from the available resources the best possible value and level of service provision for all the local communities that they serve.
I have seen that answer on a number of occasions, but I hope tonight to hear a little more, and I respectfully suggest to the Minister that the Government should have a policy towards community hospitals beyond the bland statement that they make an important contribution to the NHS, because some are under the threat of closure or have closed for reasons which give cause for concern.
The role of community hospitals was perhaps best defined by Dr. Rou in the Health Service Journal dated 26 February 1987, when he said that
patients suitable for admission to the community hospital may broadly be described as patients who, while requiring hospital care because they cannot be managed at home, do not require the facilities of a district general hospital or the services of a specialist team.
Indeed, the working party of the Gloucester health authority paid a generous tribute to the work of the community hospitals before proposing their closure. Can anybody suggest that there is any reduced demand for their services? Elderly people should not have to travel upwards of 20 miles for treatment that they could receive locally. In particular, the terminally ill must prefer to spend their final months or weeks in their own localities where their friends and families, and the vicar, can visit them and the doctor they know can treat them.
Can the Minister confirm that the NHS reforms that are currently being instituted—and should be pursued—include the belief that the NHS should be more


consumer-orientated? If so, the protection of community hospitals should have top priority, for the reasons I have outlined.
But it is not just in Gloucestershire that such concerns exist. The Association of General Practitioner Hospitals considers that there are about 400 general practitioner hospitals in Britain but would like to see that number increased to between 1,000 and 1,500. Yet fears have been expressed about the closure of such hospitals. They are indeed tempting targets, likely to be thought of as peripheral to those who believe that they can spend the money in a more effective way.
We are realistic enough to realise that the roles of community hospitals are not set in tablets of stone and that many operations are exceedingly complicated and can be carried out only at the district general hospitals with, among other things, modern anaesthetic equipment. So, seen from the eyes of a health authority, such proposals can make sense; it is much easier for it to conduct its business under one roof and centralise its activities in one district general hospital.
It was reported in the General Practitioner dated 5 February 1988:
In hospitals which use nurses to work in theatre, in casualty and on the wards, a drop in operations can quickly make it easy for the district to cut staff, argue the theatre is not viable and ultimately the whole hospital is not cost-effective.
I would say that that summary entirely fits the pattern that has occurred in my constituency. Such proposals are directly contradictory to the views expressed in the DHSS report "The Way Forward", admittedly now some 11 years old, and more recently "Towards good practices in small hospitals" by Dr. Charles Shaw. The reason for this is best illustrated by the background paper "Community Care", which is available in the House of Commons Library. On page 3 of this paper it is shown that the principal agencies involved in community care are social security, health, social services, housing, the voluntary sector and the private sector.
Does my hon. Friend agree that all those parties are concerned with health provision, including the care of the elderly? The reality is that if the health authorities are able to close community hospitals many of their elderly or geriatric patients will then be looked after and paid for by other services, and this is the crux of the matter. Health authorities have a duty to manage their budgets in the most efficient manner, but do they take into account the effect on other agencies, such as the Department of Social Security? The inescapable truth is that they do not. Therefore, the right answer for the health authority is often the wrong one for others affected—wrong for the taxpayer, wrong for other providers of health care and, above all, wrong for the people in the locality concerned.
Community care and community hospitals are inextricably linked. In most areas we have an aging population, some of whom require regular treatment, and they should not be required to travel long distances to obtain that treatment.
Can my hon. Friend confirm that the cost of care in community hospitals is about 60 per cent. of that in district general hospitals? That seems to be the experience in Finland, where I believe a study has been made. It is also estimated that 40 per cent. of all operations could be undertaken at community hospitals. Do the health

authorities have the flexibility to analyse these matters and use the community hospitals more frequently, thereby taking pressure off the district general hospitals? What is our policy towards community care? Surely our response to the Griffiths report should be known before any more community hospitals are closed.
Towns with community hospitals are often treated like a pampered minority. But I suggest that in rural areas community hospitals are a natural and necessary focal point for medical care and community care in that district. Of course, economies can be made. In too many towns we have the doctors' surgeries in one street, provision for elderly people in another and the community hospital elsewhere—in other words, scattered all round the town and all the premises requiring staff round the clock. Sheer common sense dictates that huge savings could be made by concentrating these on one site wherever possible.
In conclusion, can my hon. Friend confirm two main points? The first is that no more closures of community health hospitals will be made before our response to the Griffiths report is known—I gather this may be known soon. The second, and perhaps most important, is that when health authorities justify such closures by savings —I suggest often illusory savings—these figures will be considered only in the context of overall health provision and the financial effects on other providers of health care will be considered.
A former permanent secretary remarked:
If you are not confused about community care and community hospitals it shows you are not thinking clearly.
I feel confident that my hon. Friend will help to lift the fog.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) because I have similar constituency interests. I have small hospitals in my constituency. I wish to take this opportunity to remind the Minister of the enormous fund of goodwill that exists in rural areas for these small hospitals. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that, in the main, they are generously supported by leagues of hospital friends. In an earlier debate this week we were reminded that this nation is very charitable and the hospitals in our community have, on many occasions, been the beneficiaries of the charity for which the British people are renowned.
In my constituency—I am sure that this also applies in other constituencies—small hospitals are a focal point of community life and we should not underestimate their importance. In the countryside there is a sense of community and belonging which has long since been lost in many of our towns and cities and will not easily be regained.
I endorse all that my hon. Friend has said about the low cost of these hospitals. He suggested that they may be up to 40 per cent. cheaper than the bigger ones. They are certainly more homely, which is an important feature for their patients, and they are also more compassionate. They are capable of dealing with minor accidents, convalescent cases, patients needing respite care and—as my hon. Friend has mentioned—the terminally ill. They play an important and vital role in our community.
If these hospitals are allowed to close they will never be replaced and their demise would be the loss of an


inestimable asset. We should consider this matter carefully and not leave any stone unturned in our efforts to keep them open.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on securing time for a debate on the future of community hospitals. I also listened with great interest to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). I know of his strong constituency interests in community hospitals. I also noted the interest of my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope), in whose constituency Berkeley hospital fell prior to the last boundary changes.
In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked me to spell out Government policy on community hospitals and this is an excellent opportunity to do so. He will not expect me to make a specific statement about the two hospitals in his constituency, for reasons which I will outline later. Not only for the record, but for the purposes of this brief debate, I shall outline Government thinking on the role and importance of these hospitals.
Ministers have said on a number of occasions that small, non-specialised hospitals have a valuable role to play in providing a limited range of services, if that is what is needed locally. Local needs and wishes, the health authorities' assessment of them, and their own priorities will decide the future for each community hospital. Health authorities must ask themselves: is the hospital popular with the local community? Is its current function appropriate to today's circumstances? Is it cost-effective? Before any decisions are made the pros and cons of small community hospitals must be considered.
The advantages, as I see them, are as follows. First, relationships with local people and primary care services are easier where the hospital is seen as part of the local community being served. If it is serving geriatric patients, that means that they are able to stay in their local community. Secondly, recruitment of some categories of non-medical staff may be easier. They do not usually have to travel far to work and they soon become familiar with the hospital, the services it provides and staff already working there. Thirdly, not all in-patients will need the full range of investigation and treatment available in larger hospitals. Fourthly, journeys and access will be easier for relatives and friends as well as for patients. Fifthly, such hospitals encourage local voluntary support—and I very much agree with what both my hon. Friends have said on that score. Sixthly, communications between management and staff are less complex. Finally, GP beds can provide continuity of care directly from the GP's surgery to the hospital. I should explain that a GP bed is not under the control of a consultant, and that the GP usually provides the medical care.
However, some disadvantages should be borne in mind. First, small hospitals will not have the full range of diagnostic equipment and specialised treatment that may be required if complications develop, meaning that patients may have to be moved elsewhere. That is particularly true of maternity, in which regard I have a continuing responsibility to reduce the level of infant post-natal mortality. It is undeniable that the larger

district general hospitals have a better range of facilities to resuscitate infants born with complications than some of the smaller community hospitals.
Secondly, there may be uneconomic duplications of services and specialised staff on a number of different sites. Thirdly, they may not provide all the experience and variety of training that nursing staff require. Fourthly, they may not provide all the experience that junior medical staff require as part of their training, leading to the royal college's withdrawal of training recognition of posts and consequent medical staff shortages. Junior doctors may also be required to work very long hours to provide cover because they do not have the benefit of the size of staff of a large acute hospital.
Staff costs are higher where there is travel between two or more sites because medical and other specialised staff are on site only part-time. That could result in a reduction of quality in clinical services. Finally, there is the risk that staff may become professionally isolated and inward-looking.
Of course, not all those factors will apply in any particular case: each proposed new community hospital or proposed closure of an existing hospital must be considered on its merits. It therefore seems to me that the trend, which undeniably exists, away from small hospitals for acute in-patient care—I stress the word "acute"—will continue, except for the following clinical purposes. My hon. Friends may agree with this.
First—I am now referring to categories of care that it is appropriate to provide in smaller community hospitals —there is minor surgical and medical treatment not requiring sophisticated supporting services, which can often take place under GP supervision. Secondly, there are day surgery facilities—although again day surgery is not for the inexperienced, and difficulties may be caused by the lack of sophisticated back-up facilities. Thirdly, there is the possibility of some long-stay geriatric provision. In general, however, geriatric acute care should be based at the district general hospital, although I agree with my hon. Friend that for non-acute geriatric care there is an almost overwhelming case for including the local community hospital. Fourthly, there is recuperation and rehabilitation nearer home following major surgery at the district hospital, thus releasing beds in the hospital and reducing lengths of in-patient stay there.
Small hospitals may contribute to the health care of the elderly in three ways: through rehabilitation, continuing care and "respite" care. For patients who do not need the full range of medical services, small hospitals away from the district general hospital site may offer a quieter, less formalised environment and easier travelling for both patient and visitors—who may themselves be elderly. For rehabilitation units, small hospitals can provide a base for the various remedial therapy services.
Many patients in long-stay care essentially need nursing but not specialist medical care. Given that their long-stay bed effectively becomes their home until they die, health authorities are urged to provide this service in a homely setting rather than within the rigidities of a hospital ward. The beds may be provided in a private nursing home under a contractual arrangement, in a nursing home within the National Health Service or in a small hospital, depending on what is appropriate to meet the needs of the patient, and the relative cost advantages.
Small local hospitals no longer needed for other services may be suitable for adaptation to services for the


elderly. I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that small hospitals can provide those services. I also agree that we should not isolate expenditure on community hospitals from that on primary care—that is care provided by the doctor—social services or social security payments.
Indeed, the essence of good care for elderly people is frequently a continuation of support from all those services. The Griffiths report is, of course, mainly concerned with care in the community rather than in hospital. My hon. Friend is well aware that we are actively engaged in working up our own proposals and hope to be in a position to bring forward our plans in the near future. I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks that there should be a moratorium on closures of any community hospital, but I can say that we shall take into account the wider aspects of community care in any decision on an appeal against closure which comes to Ministers and I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that assurance.
Turning to the procedures that are normally followed in any proposed hospital closure, district health authorities should consult widely where changes are being proposed to the local pattern of hospital provision and services. GPs, other health interests and professionals, the community health council, local authorities and voluntary bodies should be included. They will need to take into

account not only the age and suitability of the buildings concerned, but also costs of repair and adaptation, future running costs, local patterns of travel and employment, likely availability of suitable trained staff, including medical and nursing recognition for training by the royal colleges, and existing links between the hospital and its local community, including links with local voluntary bodies. Any proposals for closure or significant changes in services provided which have been objected to by a community health council must be decided upon by Ministers.
Earlier in my remarks, I set out the criteria that we believe are relevant in considering the value of local community hospitals, and I hope that district health authorities will bear them in mind during the consultation process.
In the south-west, the regional health authority sees a vital role for its community hospitals which are so important, especially in rural areas. The regional health authority has, however, asked districts to review the effectiveness of their smaller hospitals, and that is a perfectly appropriate request. As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot comment on individual closure plans unless and until they are appealed to Ministers. However, in conclusion, I can say that we shall always treat any appeal carefully and after proper regard for all representations made.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Two o'clock.